Rubius Therapeutics, 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

For the transition period from                    to                       

Commission File Number: 001-38586

RUBIUS THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

(617) 679-9600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

​

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

None

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a 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. Yes ☒ No ☐

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

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price of the registrant’s common stock as of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately (based on the last reported sale price on the NASDAQ Global Select Market as of such date) was $851.6 million.

As of January 31, 2022 the registrant had 90,080,520 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2021 annual meeting of shareholders, which the registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year end of December 31, 2021. Except with respect to information specifically incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, the Proxy Statement is not deemed to be filed as part of this Form 10-K.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Rubius Therapeutics, Inc.

Table of Contents

​

​

2

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, our operations and financial performance. We intend these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are including this statement for purposes of complying with those safe harbor provisions. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plan, objectives of management, results of preclinical studies or clinical trials and expected market growth are forward-looking statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “outlook,” “believes,” “expects,” “potential,” “continues,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “predicts,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “anticipates” or the negative version of these words or other comparable words. Such forward-looking statements involve various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes or results to differ materially from those indicated in these statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

3

Table of Contents

All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K only. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking information. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. An occurrence of or any material adverse change in one or more of the risk factors or risks and uncertainties referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or included in our other public disclosures or our other periodic reports or other documents or filings filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we do not undertake or plan to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in plans, assumptions, estimates or projections or other circumstances affecting such forward-looking statements occurring after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, even if such results, changes or circumstances make it clear that any forward-looking information will not be realized. Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report on Form 10-K that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

4

Table of Contents

Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our Business

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

5

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below and in the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the SEC. If any such risks and uncertainties actually occur, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

​

​

6

Table of Contents

PART I

Except where the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated, the terms “Rubius,” “Rubius Therapeutics,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “our company,” “the company,” and “our business” refer to Rubius Therapeutics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiary.

Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this annual report are listed without the ^®, (sm) and ™ symbols, but we will assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and trade names.

Item 1. Business

Overview

Rubius Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that is biologically engineering red blood cells, or RBCs, to develop an entirely new class of cellular medicines called Red Cell Therapeutics, or RCTs, for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Our company was built upon the research and findings of Flagship Pioneering’s Venture Labs innovation team along with the discoveries of Professors Harvey Lodish and Hidde Ploegh of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT. Based on our vision that human red blood cells are the foundation of the next significant innovation in medicine, we have developed a programmable and highly versatile platform, which we call the RED PLATFORM, to biologically engineer and culture allogeneic red blood cell therapies that enable multiple applications, or modalities. We believe a key advantage of our platform is that, once a modality is validated, we increase the likelihood of success for all the programs within that modality, underscoring the broad potential of the RED PLATFORM to help patients.

2021 Highlights

In 2021, we demonstrated strong execution across our pipeline of RCTs, as highlighted below.

Broad Immune Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer

RTX-240

In March 2021, we announced initial clinical data from the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-240 in advanced solid tumors that we believe provides clinical validation of the RED PLATFORM’s potential ability to engineer red blood cells to mimic the human immune system and stimulate adaptive and innate immunity to generate clinical responses in cancer patients with refractory disease. RTX-240 is an allogeneic, off-the-shelf cellular therapy product candidate that is engineered to simultaneously present hundreds of thousands of copies of the costimulatory molecule 4-1BB ligand (4-1BBL) and IL-15TP (trans-presentation of IL-15 on IL-15Rα) in their native forms. RTX-240 is designed to broadly stimulate the immune system by activating and expanding both NK and CD8+ memory T cells to generate a potent anti-tumor response.

The data reported in March 2021 included initial safety (n=16) and efficacy (n=15) data from the RTX-240 Phase 1/2 clinical trial in relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. These data were also presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting in April 2021. Five dose cohorts were completed at the time of the data cutoff on February 28, 2021, and the data analysis was based on RECIST v1.1. criteria. We observed the following:

7

Table of Contents

Further, preliminary data from the single agent solid tumor arm of our RTX-240 Phase 1/2 study that we reported in March 2021 showed early evidence of favorable immune-permissive changes in the tumor microenvironment, or TME, in three out of four patient biopsies, including increased expression of PD-L1 and/or increased ratio of M1/M2 macrophages after treatment with RTX-240, suggesting single-agent RTX-240 is able to induce changes in the TME that have been associated with response to checkpoint inhibition.

As a result of no dose-limiting toxicities, or DLTs, and a clear NK cell number dose response and other pharmacodynamic effects, we are continuing to dose escalate the single-agent RTX-240 solid tumor trial and expect to report updated clinical results for this trial, along with an integrated clinical development plan that includes Phase 2 expansion cohorts, during the first quarter of 2022.

In March 2021, we presented preliminary trafficking data from the first acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, patient in the Phase 1 arm of the ongoing RTX-240 clinical trial for the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML, showing accumulation of activated, granzyme B-positive NK and T cells in the bone marrow, which is the site of disease in AML. We plan to report additional results from this arm of the ongoing RTX-240 clinical trial during the first quarter of 2022.

In June 2021, we began dosing patients in the arm of our RTX-240 clinical trial that is evaluating RTX-240 as a combination therapy with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. We believe that RTX-240, with its mechanism of action as a broad immune agonist, may have synergy with immune checkpoint inhibition and could potentially overcome resistance to PD-1 inhibition. We expect to report initial clinical results from this arm of the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical of RTX-240 during the second half of 2022.

In July 2021, the paper entitled “Anti-Tumor Effects of RTX-240: An Engineered Red Blood Cell Expressing 4-1BB Ligand and Interleukin-15” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy. The publication highlights preclinical findings and demonstrates that, consistent with the data reported in March 2021, RTX-240 activates and expands CD8+ T cells and NK cells in vitro and in vivo generating potent anti-tumor activity in both a colorectal and melanoma model.

RTX-224

RTX-224 is an allogeneic cellular therapy that is engineered to express hundreds of thousands of copies of 4-1BBL and interleukin-12, or IL-12, on the cell surface. RTX-224 is designed as a broad immune agonist of both adaptive and innate responses, designed to activate CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, activate and expand NK cells, and promote antigen presentation. It is expected to produce a broad and potent anti-tumor T cell response and an innate immune response and have anti-tumor activity in those tumor types with known sensitivity to T cell killing, including tumor types with high mutational burden, PD-L1 expression and known responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors. The combination of IL-12 and

8

Table of Contents

4-1BBL has the potential to broadly induce an immune response in patients with solid tumors and may serve as the bridge between the innate and adaptive immune systems.

In November 2021, we presented preclinical data for RTX-224 at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 36th Annual Meeting, showing that RTX-224 activated immune cells in the spleen and blood, leading to their trafficking into the tumor microenvironment to deliver an anti-tumor effect in our preclinical models.

The IND for RTX-224 was cleared in 2021, and, in January 2022, we began dosing patients in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-224 for the treatment of patients with certain relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial (bladder) carcinoma and triple-negative breast cancer.

Antigen-Specific Immune Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer

RTX-321

RTX-321 is an allogeneic, off-the-shelf artificial antigen presenting cell, or aAPC, therapy product candidate that is engineered to induce a tumor-specific immune response by expanding antigen-specific T cells. RTX-321 expresses hundreds of thousands of copies of an HPV 16 peptide antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex class I proteins, the costimulatory molecule 4-1BBL and the cytokine IL-12 on the cell surface to mimic human T cell-APC interactions. In our Investigational New Drug, or IND, application filing, we included frozen drug substance for the first time as part of the manufacturing process, allowing for a truly off-the-shelf cellular therapy product candidate with a potential shelf life of several years.

In May 2021, a peer-reviewed manuscript about RTX-321 was published in Nature Communications, highlighting preclinical findings demonstrating that the surrogate model of RTX-321 induced a broad immune response, epitope spreading and memory formation in preclinical studies.

We began dosing patients in the Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-321 in April 2021. As of January 2022, there have been no DLTs observed and we are therefore continuing to dose escalate the trial. We expect to report initial results from the trial during the second half of 2022.

Antigen-Specific Immune Tolerance for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases

RTX-T1D (Type 1 Diabetes)

In December 2021, we shared preclinical proof of concept data, demonstrating tolerance induction and the potential for bystander suppression in two stringent type 1 diabetes preclinical models. Specifically, we established efficacy in the BDC2.5 adoptive transfer model with data showing that an RTX-T1D surrogate reversed established inflammation and induced two types of regulatory T cells, resulting in protection against re-challenge. Moreover, the data showed that repeated dosing could extend duration of disease protection to 5 months (the endpoint of the study). We also showed early efficacy in the non-obese diabetic mouse, or NOD, preclinical model. Results at 25 weeks showed that a mouse surrogate of RTX-T1D that delivered only two antigens delayed disease. As disease in NOD mice is caused by many autoantigens, these results demonstrate the potential for bystander suppression. These findings are potentially translatable beyond type 1 diabetes to multiple autoimmune diseases, including Rubius other high priority target indications such as multiple sclerosis and celiac disease.

We intend to present these results in a peer-reviewed setting and expect to provide details of our development timeline later in 2022.

Manufacturing

In 2021, we achieved the following manufacturing milestones:

​

9

Table of Contents

​

​

We have the potential to significantly expand our manufacturing capabilities and plan to stage additional investments based on future needs and in preparation for potential pivotal trials and eventual commercialization.

Our Approach

Utilizing Red Blood Cells to Create Cellular Therapies

RBCs represent the first example of a transformative cellular therapy as physicians have been administering blood to patients since the early 1800s. We believe that RCTs have the potential to transform the cellular therapy landscape and may avoid many of the complications and risks often associated with earlier generation cellular therapies since RCTs have low levels of nucleated cells and therefore have a low risk of oncogenicity. Given the well-characterized and confined biodistribution of RBCs to the vasculature and spleen, RCTs represent the ideal cell type to enable direct cell-cell interaction with immune system cells also located in the vasculature and spleen.

​

The RED PLATFORM Enables Multiple Modalities in Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases

We currently have three modalities that we are actively developing – broad and antigen-specific immune system stimulation for the treatment of cancer and immune modulation to induce antigen-specific tolerance for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We believe that once we create and validate a modality, it will allow for the creation of multiple medicines within such modality.

​

10

Table of Contents

Cancer: RCTs are engineered to express combinations of co-stimulatory molecules, cytokines and/or other molecules on the cell surface to activate and expand different components of the immune system. We believe our RCTs have the potential to offer the following advantages:

Broad immune stimulation: Our RCT product candidates are engineered to broadly activate the adaptive and innate immune systems through immune cell agonists to attack and kill tumors. RCTs can express combinations of co-stimulatory ligands, cytokines and/or other molecules and are designed to replicate how the immune system naturally activates effectors, for example, T and NK cells. Because red blood cells are largely restricted to the vasculature and spleen, these product candidates may have limited side effects, as observed in our preclinical studies, with a potential for a broad therapeutic window. We believe RCTs have the potential for wide therapeutic application across a range of solid tumors and hematologic cancers. This approach has been de-risked with the initial results from the RTX-240 single-agent Phase 1 trial, and we believe the increased likelihood of success extends to our second broad immune stimulation program, RTX-224, which entered the clinic in January 2022.

We are currently exploring several additional broad immune stimulation modalities in cancer. For example, we are investigating additional payloads and proteins for enhanced potency and are evaluating how we can use our cells to activate dendritic cells with or without an antigen.

Tumor antigen-specific immune activation via cell surface antigen presentation: We are also developing RCT product candidates to simultaneously express three signals on the cell surface: (1) a tumor-specific antigen in the context of major histocompatibility complex, or MHC, molecule, (2) a co-stimulatory ligand and (3) a cytokine. These cells, termed artificial antigen presenting cells, or aAPCs, have a dual mechanism of action: they are designed to induce both a tumor-specific immune response by expanding tumor antigen-specific T cells, as well as broad immune activation capable of eliciting an anti-tumor response in vivo. RTX-321, our lead aAPC program, is engineered to express an HPV 16-associated peptide bound to MHC class I, 4-1BBL and IL-12 on the cell surface to mimic human T cell-APC interactions. We plan to follow RTX-321 with a range of programs that could target viral antigens, shared, or over-expressed cancer-associated antigens and personalized neoantigens.

For our antigen-specific approach in cancer, we are also developing a next generation artificial antigen-presenting cell approach with a loadable MHC Class I molecule that allows for presentation of multiple antigens on a single RCT and creates a library of HLA types to broaden the number of patients we may reach with our aAPCs.

​

Our ability to modulate the immune system extends beyond oncology.

​

Autoimmune Diseases: RCT product candidates are engineered to express specific autoantigens that are the target of immune responses which cause autoimmune disease. This approach takes advantage of the natural tolerogenic properties of RBCs and enables us to potentially add further modifications to enhance the ability of the RCT to suppress, modulate or eliminate disease-causing cells. We have generated data in two stringent preclinical models of Type 1 diabetes that collectively demonstrate antigen-specific tolerance induction with the potential for bystander suppression. This proof of concept can potentially be extended beyond Type 1 diabetes to other T cell-mediated diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and celiac disease, as well as to the prevention of undesired immune responses to enzyme replacement therapy and gene therapy.

Additionally, we are exploring how we can arm RCTs with other immunomodulators and targeting moieties to further enhance their ability to induce tolerance.

Advantages of Our Proprietary RED PLATFORM

Our discoveries and innovations in genetic engineering and cell culture processes support our belief that RBCs have the potential to serve as a foundation for the creation and development of a new class of cellular therapies. The RED PLATFORM and RCTs are designed to confer desirable attributes for a next generation cellular therapy, including the following:

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

Our vision is to create life-changing, allogeneic cellular therapies for patients with severe diseases. To achieve our vision, we are executing a strategy with the following key elements:

Establish RCTs as a new class of cellular medicines, demonstrating their potential across two initial product categories: cancer and autoimmune diseases. We apply a rigorous and capital-efficient approach to prioritize our product candidate pipeline, focusing on unmet need, feasibility, speed to proof-of-concept, cost to manufacture, validated endpoints and commercial potential.

Pursue accelerated paths to marketing authorization. We are focusing on indications with high unmet needs that may allow us to pursue accelerated paths to product registration.

Build a leading, fully integrated cellular therapy company. We have built a fully integrated platform company well-positioned to advance our current pipeline of RCTs from discovery, research and platform innovation through clinical development, which we believe will enable us to move with speed and incorporate new learnings as we advance the platform, and to nimbly respond to emerging opportunities. We have built and customized each capability to deliver on our entirely novel platform and modality approach.

Further strengthen our position as the pioneer of RCTs through continuous platform expansion and improvement. Our proprietary RED PLATFORM enables rapid and repeatable parallel generation of therapeutic candidates. Since platform inception, we have biologically engineered more than 1,000 different therapeutic proteins, underscoring the highly versatile and programmable nature of the platform. In March 2021, we disclosed initial clinical results from the single-agent RTX-240 Phase 1/2 clinical trial in advanced solid tumors, which we believe provide clinical validation of the RED PLATFORM. We continue to invest in enhancing our platform and plan to explore new payloads and proteins on or within our cells, introduce a loadable MHC platform to extend the benefit of an antigen-specific approach to more patients and activate dendritic cells as an additional way to activate the immune system. In autoimmune diseases, we believe a T-cell directed immune tolerance approach is possible with the RED PLATFORM as is adding different immune modulatory and targeting moieties and preventing undesired immune responses to enzyme replacement therapy and gene therapy.

​

Expand patient access to RCTs through strategic partnerships. Given the breadth of therapeutic opportunities for RCTs, we believe select strategic partnerships in a subset of therapeutic areas may provide an attractive avenue for expanding patient access to RCTs. The global reach and operational expertise within certain pharmaceutical companies may complement our growing organization in areas such as clinical development and commercialization.

​

Maintain a strong culture, continuously attract new talent and build the world’s leading center for red blood cell biology research and engineering. Our headquarters are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of the world’s leading hubs for biopharmaceutical innovation, providing us access to world-class talent, leading academic investigators and key opinion leaders. We have leveraged our location to attract scientific talent and experienced, innovative leaders and have built a strong culture that is focused on realizing our vision. In recognition of this commitment, we were named a 2021 Top Places to Work by the Boston Globe. In addition, we have a highly experienced cell therapy technical operations team at our fully owned manufacturing site in Smithfield, Rhode Island, which was named among the 2021 Top 3 Places to Work in Rhode Island by the Providence Business Journal. We have assembled a network of scientific advisors with deep expertise in red blood cell biology, process development and manufacturing, as well as clinical experience across the therapeutic areas that we are initially targeting. We will continue to build a team of employees, advisors and collaborators with experience in the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of cellular therapies.

​

13

Table of Contents

Our Broad and Diverse Product Candidate Pipeline

Rubius Therapeutics is advancing a broad pipeline of RCT product candidates. Our current programs are investigating applications across a range of cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Definitions: aAPC—artificial antigen presenting cell; AML—acute myeloid leukemia; HPV 16+—Human papillomavirus 16 positive; R/R —relapsed/refractory.

Cancer

We believe that RCTs may have broad therapeutic applicability across a range of both solid and hematological cancers and are developing a pipeline of RCTs that target T cells, NK cells, dendritic cells or combinations thereof that are designed to then lead to the killing of tumor cells. Our RCT oncology pipeline is noteworthy in the field of immuno-oncology as our RCTs can be engineered to target cancer in both a non-specific manner (combining T cell agonists and cytokines on the cell surface) for broad immune system stimulation or in an antigen-specific manner with our artificial antigen-presenting cells to generate a tumor antigen-specific response. In addition to investigating the single-agent activity of each RCT product candidate in the clinic, we plan to evaluate our RCTs in combination with other immuno-oncology agents, as well as standard of care therapy (for example, chemotherapy or signaling inhibitors).

Broad Immune System Stimulation: RTX-240 and RTX-224

RTX-240 and RTX-224 are designed to broadly stimulate and expand adaptive and innate immunity to generate an antitumor response by expressing agonist natural ligands on the surface of RCTs, replicating how the immune system naturally functions. RTX-240 and RTX-224 represent two approaches to combination agonist therapy in the clinic.

RTX-240 is designed as a broad immune agonist engineered to express hundreds of thousands of copies of trimeric 4-1BBL and of IL-15TP, a fusion of IL-15 and IL-15 receptor alpha, on the cell surface. This combination is synergistic and designed to activate and expand both NK cells and CD8+ memory T cells. The potent activation of the NK cell subset by RTX-240 leads to a mechanism of action that may target specific tumor types thought to be susceptible to this mechanism, for example, those immunologically “cold” tumors, with low PD-L1 and low MHC class I expression. We are initially studying RTX-240 across a range of solid tumor types and in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia and expect to utilize the specific biology of both NK and T cells to select appropriate indications for the further development of RTX-240.

In contrast to RTX-240, RTX-224 is engineered to express hundreds of thousands of copies of 4-1BBL and IL-12 on the cell surface. It has been designed as a broad immune agonist to induce both a potent anti-tumor T cell response and an innate immune response and to have anti-tumor activity in those tumor types with known sensitivity to T cell killing, including tumor types with high mutational burden, PD-L1 expression and known responsiveness to checkpoint

14

Table of Contents

inhibitors. The combination of IL-12 and 4-1-BBL signaling is designed to potently stimulate the proliferation and activation of all subsets of effector T cells, as well as cells of the innate response, while limiting the activation of the regulatory T cell population. IL-12 stimulation of immune cells drives the activation and proliferation of both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells across the subsets, driving Th1 differentiation, and promotes antigen presentation through the effects of IL-12 on the innate immune response.

Each of IL-15 and IL-12 has potentially potent effects that will guide the development plans for RTX-240 and RTX-224, respectively. We believe the synergistic activity between the expression of 4-1BBL and these two key cytokines has the potential to provide a number of therapeutic benefits:

We believe that both RTX-240 and RTX-224 provide potentially transformative approaches to treating patients with solid or hematological tumors whose disease could respond to immunotherapy. Further, we believe that by demonstrating that RTX-240 and RTX-224 are working as intended to induce antitumor innate and adaptive immune responses, we can unlock the potential of the RED PLATFORM across our pipeline of cancer programs.

​

​

​

​

​

​

15

Table of Contents

RTX-240 in solid tumors

Current therapies and their limitations

Checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-programmed death protein 1 antibodies, or anti-PD-1 antibodies, act by inhibiting suppression of the adaptive immune system in cancer patients and have significantly extended survival in multiple solid tumor types, particularly in patients with advanced cancers. The vast potential of checkpoint inhibitors is highlighted by market projections that estimate sales for this class of drugs could reach $50 billion in 2024. Despite the encouraging efficacy of checkpoint inhibition for some patients, overall response rates remain relatively low and range, on average, from 25% to 50%. Unfortunately, even when a patient’s cancer does respond to treatment, the disease often progresses within six to 12 months, depending on the cancer and the therapeutic intervention. Clinicians and biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly evaluating combination therapies to improve response rates and to expand the size of the population that may benefit. RTX-240 has the potential to overcome resistance to checkpoint inhibitors, given the biologic effects observed with RTX-240.

Clinical Development of RTX-240 in solid tumors

We are currently enrolling adult patients in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating RTX-240 in patients with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. The trial is an open-label, multicenter, multidose, first-in-human dose escalation and expansion study to determine the safety and tolerability, recommended phase 2 dose and optimal dosing interval, pharmacology, and antitumor activity of RTX-240. Primary outcome measures include: (1) safety as measured by incidence of treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs; (2) dose limiting toxicities, or DLTs, as determined by incidence and severity of adverse events; and (3) pharmacodynamic, or PD, effects which are evaluated through changes in NK and T cell activation states and numbers relative to baseline in both peripheral blood, as well as in on-treatment tumor biopsies. Secondary outcome measures include: (1) the pharmacokinetics, or PK, of RTX-240 as measured by the number of RTX-240 cells positive for both 4-1BBL and IL-15 using flow cytometry; (2) determination of immunogenicity of RTX-240 as measured by incidence of antibodies to RTX-240; (3) antitumor activity of RTX-240 as measured by clinical benefit rate, or CBR, duration of response, or DoR, progression-free survival, or PFS, overall survival, or OS, time to response, or TTR, and time to progression, or TTP; and (4) antitumor activity as measured by objective response rate. The study will include an expansion phase in specified tumor types during the Phase 2 portion of the solid tumor arm.

​

Initial clinical data for RTX-240 in solid tumors

In March 2021, we reported initial clinical results from the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-240 in patients with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

16

Table of Contents

Patient Population

Initial Efficacy Data

​

Five dose cohorts were completed in the solid tumor trial at the time of the data cutoff on February 28, 2021 (n=16), with 16 patients evaluable for safety (primary outcome measure) and 15 patients evaluable for efficacy (secondary outcome measure) based on RECIST v1.1.

​

RTX-240 generated:

​

​

​

​

17

Table of Contents

Initial Safety Data

​

The most common treatment-related Grade 1/2 adverse events were fatigue (n=4), chills, nausea, decreased appetite and arthralgias all reported in 3 patients each. There were no treatment-related Grade 3/4 adverse events, no dose-limiting toxicities and a single Grade 1 event of liver toxicity.

​

Ten immune-related adverse events, or irAEs, were observed among 5 patients with no reported treatment-related Grade 3/4 irAEs. Grade 2 treatment-related irAEs included pneumonitis (n=1), adrenal insufficiency (n=1) and hypothyroidism (n=1).

​
​

18

Table of Contents

We believe these data provide clinical validation of our RED PLATFORM and de-risk our oncology pipeline of RCTs. We plan to report updated clinical results for this trial, along with an integrated clinical development plan that includes Phase 2 expansion cohorts during the first quarter of 2022.

RTX-240 in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia

Current therapies and their limitations

Acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, is characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of myeloid blasts. These replace the bone marrow so that there is minimal production of platelets, red blood cells and neutrophils. It is primarily a disease of the elderly with a median age of diagnosis of 68 years. In 2017, there were more than 20,000 new cases of AML and more than 10,000 deaths caused by AML in the United States.

Standard first-line AML treatment has been unchanged for over 40 years: a regimen of intensive induction and consolidation therapy. Some patients experience remission and then a return of the leukemia, which is referred to as relapsed AML. Refractory AML occurs when patients have received treatment, typically two rounds of chemotherapy, but the disease does not go into remission. The overall outcome for patients with relapsed/refractory AML remains poor, with 5-year overall survival of approximately 10 percent. Limited therapeutic options currently exist for these patients.

Therefore, many younger patients with AML undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, or HSCT, which can be curative if the transplant is successful, but which is associated with notable morbidity and mortality. In 2016, more than 3,500 AML patients underwent allogeneic HSCT in the United States and over 6,200 underwent the procedure in Europe.

Recently, additional therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, such as venetoclax, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, CPX-351, and, for patients with specific mutations, midostaurin and enasidenib. Although these therapies improve response rates and enable more patients to bridge to transplant, overall survival rates remain low.

​

Clinical development of RTX-240 in AML

Myeloid malignancies like AML have been noted to inhibit NK cell differentiation and cytotoxic potential. The resulting NK cell dysfunction is thought to contribute to disease progression in AML. Further, treatment response and outcome in AML is correlated with NK cell function during and after treatment, suggesting that NK cells play a key role in this setting. 

In addition to the general effects of NK cells in AML, the effectiveness of allogeneic HSCT depends on both the killing of residual tumor by high-dose chemotherapy and on graft versus leukemia effects. NK cells are a critical component of the graft versus leukemia effect. After bone marrow ablation and allogeneic transplantation, NK cells are the first lymphocyte population to recover, but their killing and cytokine-secreting functions are limited when compared to the NK cells of healthy donors. The rate of return and function of NK cells are correlated with treatment outcome post-allogeneic HSCT, so increasing the number and function of NK cells post-allogeneic HSCT to stimulate the graft versus leukemia effect has the potential to increase survival in patients receiving allogeneic HSCT for the treatment of AML. As discussed above, 4-1BBL and IL-15TP induce proliferation and maturation of NK cells, supporting the testing of RTX-240 in both the relapsed or refractory transplant-ineligible populations, as well as the post-allogeneic HSCT setting. We believe that the biology of RTX-240 makes it particularly well-suited to the post-allogeneic HSCT setting and also that, given its preliminary favorable safety profile seen to date and mechanism of action, RTX-240 could provide benefit as a maintenance therapy for AML patients in remission following chemotherapy or transplantation.

We are currently dosing patients with relapsed or refractory AML in a Phase 1 arm of the RTX-240 clinical trial which includes patients post-transplant or those who are not eligible for an allogeneic transplant. This Phase 1 clinical trial is an open-label, multicenter, multidose, first-in-human dose escalation and expansion to determine the safety and tolerability, recommended phase 2 dose and optimal dosing interval, pharmacology, and antitumor activity of RTX-240. Primary outcome measures include: (1) safety as measured by incidence of TEAEs; (2) DLTs as determined by incidence and severity of adverse events; and (3) PD effects which are evaluated through changes in NK and T cell numbers relative to

19

Table of Contents

baseline. Secondary outcome measures include (1) the PK of RTX-240 as measured by the number of RTX-240 cells positive for both 4-1BBL and IL-15 using flow cytometry; (2) determination of immunogenicity of RTX-240 as measured by incidence of antibodies to RTX-240; (3) antitumor activity of RTX-240 as measured by CBR, DoR, PFS, OS, TTR and TTP; and (4) antitumor activity as measured by overall response rate.

In March 2021, we presented preliminary trafficking data from the first AML patient in the trial, indicating strong accumulation of activated, granzyme B-positive NK and T cells in the bone marrow, which is the site of disease in AML. We plan to report additional results from the Phase 1 arm of the ongoing RTX-240 clinical trial for the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML during the first quarter of 2022.

RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab in solid tumors

Clinical development of RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab

Combining an immune agonist with a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor has the potential to prevent a cancer from evading an immune response. We believe that RTX-240, with its mechanism of action as a broad immune agonist, may act synergistically with the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to drive activated T cells and NK cells into the TME and potentially overcome resistance to PD-1 inhibition. Once activated cells enter the TME, pembrolizumab may enhance their activity by delaying or preventing T cell exhaustion.

Given the favorable emerging safety profile and promising initial clinical activity reported as part of our initial clinical results from the ongoing Phase 1/2 monotherapy trial of RTX-240 in advanced solid tumors, we believe that the combination of RTX-240 with pembrolizumab has the potential to provide significant benefit to patients with disease that is relapsed or refractory to prior anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy.

We are currently dosing patients in a Phase 1 arm of our ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. This Phase 1 arm is an open label, multicenter, multidose, first-in-human dose-escalation and expansion study designed to determine the safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose and a recommended Phase 2 dose and dosing regimen of RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab in adults with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors.

20

Table of Contents

RTX-224 in solid tumors

Preclinical data for RTX-224

RTX-224 has been shown to drive both T cell and NK cell activation and expansion by simultaneously and proximately co-expressing IL-12 and 4-1BBL.

Our in vivo studies of a murine surrogate of RTX-224, or mRBC-224, administered subcutaneously in an MC38 colon cancer mouse model provided evidence in support of RTX-224’s immune activation and tumor control. In this model, tumor cells were injected to establish growing tumors and then mice were treated with a control mRBC (mRBC-CTRL) alone, mRBC-224 alone, an anti-PD-1 antibody in combination with mRBC-CTRL, or with mRBC-224 in combination with an anti-PD-1 antibody. mRBC-224 administered as a monotherapy reduced tumor burden in mice compared to those treated with mRBC-CTRL with or without an anti-PD-1 antibody. mRBC-224 administered alone resulted in 5/11 tumor regressions, while mRBC-224 administered in combination with an anti-PD-1 antibody induced 9/11 tumor regressions. These results are depicted below.

Activity of mRBC-224 in an MC38 Colon Cancer Mouse Model

Dugast, et. al., American Association for Cancer Research; Poster #3256, 2019.

​

Current therapies and their limitations

While checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment, their limitations are becoming increasingly evident. Responses are confined to certain tumor types and only a limited portion of patients are cured. Currently, the challenge in immunotherapy is to induce responses in refractory tumors, as well as to increase the rate and duration of response.

IL-12 is known to promote antigen presentation on dendritic cells through the effects of IL-12 on the innate responses and drive the activation and proliferation of all subsets of T cells. This antigen presentation may enable us to target formerly non-immunogenic tumors by enhancing their immune signature and activating a broader T cell response against the tumor, potentially leading to a more effective immunotherapy approach. Additionally, by stimulating a broad T cell response across both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, RTX-224 could be combined with checkpoint inhibitors with the potential to both improve and extend responses.

Clinical development of RTX-224

We are enrolling patients in a Phase 1/2 open label, multicenter, multidose, first-in-human dose-escalation and expansion study to determine the safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose and a recommended Phase 2 dose and dosing regimen of RTX-224 in adult patients with certain relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors

21

Table of Contents

including non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial (bladder) carcinoma and triple-negative breast cancer. The trial will also assess pharmacodynamic changes in immune cell populations relative to baseline and anti-tumor activity. The study will include a monotherapy dose escalation phase followed by an expansion phase in specified tumor types during the Phase 2 portion of the trial.

Tumor antigen-specific immune stimulation

Current therapies and their limitations

Immuno-oncologists are pursuing multiple approaches to target antigens for the purpose of killing cancer cells. CAR-T cell therapies are an autologous approach that engineers a patient’s own T cells ex vivo to target a specific antigen. However, CAR-T therapies have shown efficacy in only a limited number of hematological malignancies, can have significant toxicity and have challenges with manufacturing and scaleup. CAR-NK cells are an alternative approach utilizing the innate killing properties of allogeneic NK cells expressing antigen receptors by companies such as Nkarta Therapeutics. Other companies are using different therapeutic modalities to try to expand the number of T cells targeting a particular antigen in vivo, such as BioNTech SE using RNA and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. using DNA-based therapy. Despite these multiple approaches, there remains a need for more effective therapies that target cancer, or cancer-associated antigens.

We believe our approach to engineering red blood cells as artificial antigen presenting cells has the potential to represent a significant improvement over previous approaches by increasing the quality and quantity of T cell response through direct antigen presentation, as well as enabling antigen spread to other tumor antigens through broad anti-tumor immune stimulation.

RTX-321 for HPV 16-positive tumors

HPV 16 is associated with approximately 70% of cervical cancers, approximately 40% of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC, arising in the oropharynx, approximately 25% to 40% of HNSCC arising in other locations and approximately 80% to 85% of anal cancers. A critical need exists for better treatment options for advanced HPV 16-positive cancers. The prognosis remains poor for patients with metastatic disease with few treatment options beyond the first-line setting.

RTX-321 is an allogeneic aAPC therapy product candidate that is engineered to induce a tumor antigen-specific immune response by expanding tumor antigen-specific T cells. RTX-321 expresses hundreds of thousands of copies of an HPV 16 peptide antigen bound to MHC class I proteins, the costimulatory molecule 4-1BBL and the cytokine IL-12 on the cell surface to mimic human T cell-APC interactions.

Preclinical data for RTX-321

In May 2021, a peer-reviewed manuscript for RTX-321 was published in Nature Communications, highlighting preclinical findings demonstrating that the surrogate of RTX-321 induced a broad immune response, epitope spreading and memory formation in preclinical models. As supported by the data shown in our preclinical studies, RTX-321 has a dual mechanism of action by not only functioning as an antigen-presenting cell to boost HPV 16 antigen-specific T cell responses, but also promoting broad immune system stimulation of both innate and adaptive immunity. The ability to engage both arms of the immune system is expected to provide a robust anti-tumor response by both T cells and innate immune cells, making it harder for the tumor to escape by immune evasion.

​

This dual mechanism of action is a key part of the development of epitope spreading, suggesting that RTX-321 may induce the expansion of an immune response to secondary epitopes, or antigens, that are not expressed on RTX-321, as well as the development of a potent memory response, potentially enabling the body to remember a cancer’s identity, which is critical to providing long-term protection from recurrence of the tumor. As shown below, in the experiment on the left, animals that were cured of their tumor by mRBC-OVA-4-1BBL-IL-12 were immune to rechallenge with the tumor. On the right, animals that were cured of their tumor by mRBC-OVA-4-1BBL-IL-12 were rechallenged with the

22

Table of Contents

tumor lacking the original antigen. Here, 6/7 mice had delayed tumor growth and three were cured, indicating the development of epitope spreading.

Clinical Development of RTX-321

The RTX-321 Phase 1 clinical trial, which we initiated in April 2021, is an open-label, multicenter, multiple-ascending dose, first-in-human study of RTX-321 for the treatment of adult patients with HPV 16-positive cancers. Patients eligible for this study include those that are HLA-A*02:01 positive with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic, unresectable, HPV 16-positive cancers, including unresectable cervical cancer (squamous, adeno, or adenosquamous histology), HNSCC or squamous cell cancer of the anal canal that is not amenable to curative therapy. The purpose of the trial is to determine the safety and tolerability, recommended phase 2 dose and pharmacology, and antitumor activity of RTX-321. Prior to study screening, all patients must be confirmed to be HLA-A*02:01 positive. Documentation of an HPV 16-positive tumor is required at prescreening for patients with cervical cancer and HNSCC. The study will include a monotherapy dose escalation phase followed by an expansion phase.

As a result of no DLTs observed as of January 2022, we are continuing to dose escalate the Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-321 for the treatment of patients with HPV 16-positive cancers. The primary outcome measures are safety as measured by incidence of TEAEs and DLTs as determined by incidence of severity of adverse events. Secondary outcome measures include 1) PDs, which are measured through changes in immune cell populations in the periphery relative to baseline; 2) PKs as measured by detection of the number of RTX-321 cells using flow cytometry; and 3) antitumor activity of RTX-321 as measured by PFS and overall response rate.

Autoimmune diseases

RCT product candidates for the induction of antigen-specific tolerance

Current therapies and their limitations

Over the past two decades, considerable progress has been made in the treatment of a range of autoimmune disorders with many patients enjoying an improvement in quality of life as a result. Despite their success, current therapeutic approaches to autoimmune diseases are non-specifically immunosuppressive and expose patients to an increased risk of opportunistic infection and cancers, as is the case with calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors and anti-TNF antibodies. In up to one third of cases, patients with autoimmune diseases fail to respond to treatment, and even with most responding patients, the disease ultimately loses responsiveness over time.

23

Table of Contents

While the triggers of most autoimmune diseases remain unknown, it is generally understood that disease is the result of a loss of tolerance to one’s own cells. The accepted model of disease assumes an inherent genetic susceptibility followed by an environmental trigger, which leads to a breakdown of T cell-mediated immune regulation. In principle, restoration of peripheral tolerance should provide patients with a partial response or a complete cure.

A range of competitive approaches to peripheral tolerance restoration have been investigated over the last few decades. These include the oral administration and direct injection of a protein or peptide with or without immunosuppression, the creation of peptide bearing nanoparticles and the adoptive transfer of engineered regulatory T cells. Thus far, these approaches have not proven to be successful in late-stage clinical trials, but the field continues to progress. Direct administration of peptides and nanoparticles suffer biodistribution, stability, presentation and orientation challenges which limit the effectiveness of cell-cell signaling. To date, adoptive transfer approaches are all autologous and are hampered by some of the same handling and scalability issues that limit the application of other cellular therapies. By contrast, we believe presentation of antigens in or on RCTs has the potential to recapitulate the normal process of self/non-self recognition that would lead to tolerance induction. When compared with contemporary and historical approaches of tolerance induction, RCTs could represent a clinically meaningful step forward.

Tolerance Induction

​

We believe our programmable platform is versatile enough to enable us to develop a number of modalities for autoimmune diseases. We can engineer our RCTs to express specific autoimmune disease-associated antigens either within the cell or on the cell surface to take advantage of how the body normally maintains self-tolerance, thereby retraining the immune system to no longer see self-antigens as foreign.

In addition, we have the ability to express immune modulating cytokines, enzymes or inhibitory signals, which may have the potential to enhance the tolerogenic effects of our RCTs.

​

We believe RCTs can be designed to more specifically modulate complex counter-regulatory immune responses and enable greater efficacy with lower toxicity, potentially providing treatments for a number of diseases, and, in some cases, potentially even cures.

​

We are also exploring how we can generate T cell-directed immune tolerance as well as arming RCTs with other immunomodulators and targeting moieties to induce tolerance. Using this approach, we believe that we can engineer our RCTs to prevent immunogenicity to enzyme replacement therapy and gene therapy.

​

Type 1 Diabetes

​

Type 1 diabetes is a T-cell driven autoimmune disease with well-defined antigens, making it an ideal disease indication for our antigen-specific tolerance approach.

​

We generated durable efficacy in two stringent preclinical models of Type 1 diabetes and demonstrated that the mechanism of action includes the induction of two different types of regulatory T cells, which provides proof of mechanism and is important for the potential success of this therapy in the clinic. This proof of concept can potentially be extended beyond Type 1 diabetes to other T cell-mediated diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and celiac disease.

​

Preclinical Data for RTX-T1D

​

In the BDC2.5 adoptive cell transfer preclinical model, we established efficacy with data supporting that we prevented diabetes with a single dose and repeated dosing extended duration of disease protection. In this experiment, we transferred activated T cells, the T cells that cause diabetes, into mice and one-day later dosed these mice with our mouse RBCs. Animals treated with control red blood cells rapidly developed diabetes and animals treated with mRBCs containing the target antigen (mRBC-p31) remained healthy. We prevented diabetes for 12 weeks in this model with a single dose of mRBCs.

​

24

Table of Contents

​

Additionally in another experiment, on day 42 we rechallenged the mice with a second adoptive transfer of BDC2.5 cells, the disease-causing T cells, without any further administration of mRBC-p31. We observed that the animals were protected from rechallenge, even when no further mRBC therapy was administered, meaning the established tolerance was robust and not broken by new inflammatory cells, suggesting the emergence of regulatory T cells as a mechanism.

​

​

We used a single cell RNAseq to trace the fate of the BDC2.5 T cells that were given to mice. When the animals were treated with mRBC control cells, most of the BDC2.5 T cells remained inflammatory. In contrast, when the animals were treated with mRBC-p31 (mRBCs expressing the antigen), the BDC2.5 cells were no longer inflammatory, but instead we saw a dramatic increase in two types of regulatory T cells, Tregs and Tr1 cells which are important to suppress immune system function, and anergic cells which cannot respond to the antigen. This is expected to be important in the clinic since regulatory T cells prevent effector cells from mounting an immune response in patients with diabetes.

​

25

Table of Contents

​

In a second diabetes model, the non-obese diabetes model, or NOD model, mice spontaneously develop diabetes. In this model, we showed that a mouse red blood cell that contains only two of the relevant antigens delayed the development of diabetes over the course of the experiment. This result not only demonstrates early efficacy in a predictive model, but, since disease in this model is driven by many antigens, also shows the potential for bystander suppression, or the ability to suppress the immune response to multiple antigens by delivering only a limited number of antigens. We believe this could be an important preclinical mechanism of action finding for potential translation in the clinic.

​

We intend to present these results in a peer-reviewed setting and provide details of our development timeline later in 2022.

​

Manufacturing

To more efficiently develop new RCTs designed to treat different diseases, we have modified one of our initial manufacturing steps in which we add a gene or genes of interest that encode biotherapeutic proteins within the cell or on the cell surface. Using this approach, we have expressed more than 1,000 different therapeutic proteins since platform inception. This programmable process allows for the repeated generation of product candidates and enables us to leverage common CMC and toxicology data packages across our therapies.

We have industrialized the production of RCTs by developing and scaling up a manufacturing process by which hematopoietic progenitor cells are expanded, then biologically engineered and subsequently differentiated into erythroid cells (RCTs) that express biotherapeutic proteins within the cell or on the cell surface. The RED PLATFORM allows us to generate a wide variety of allogeneic, ready-to-use RCT product candidates with a universal and proprietary process through the following steps:

26

Table of Contents

A single donor is expected to allow us to manufacture up to thousands of doses when we reach full manufacturing capacity. With approximately 7% of the U.S. population having an O negative blood type, we believe that there is ample supply of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells needed to produce our RCTs. Additionally, due to the inherent properties of RBCs, RCTs can be manufactured in large bioreactors using our proprietary manufacturing processes, which could result in the cost of goods sold being significantly lower than other cellular therapies.

In connection with our IND applications for RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, the FDA has reviewed our established manufacturing process capable of producing product candidates for clinical use in accordance with cGMP operations. We expect to be able to use the same or similar manufacturing processes for all our future RCT product candidates, which could enable us to bring RCTs into clinical development in an accelerated manner.

Based on our expertise in red blood cell biology and advice from leading hematologists and blood transfusion experts, we have developed RCT product release criteria to determine the purity, viability, red blood cell identity and potency of each RCT batch. These release criteria have been reviewed and accepted for clinical use by the FDA.

We manufacture RCTs in bioreactors, which enable us to control critical process parameters and thereby produce consistent RCTs that meet the established product release criteria. We are currently working to further increase yields and plan to scale into larger bioreactors for eventual commercialization. We currently use external suppliers for lentiviral vector production.

In addition to the standard RCT manufacturing process, we have developed alternative proprietary processes for engineering hematopoietic progenitor cells and maturing these into RCTs. These processes may be utilized in the production of future RCTs.

27

Table of Contents

Expanding our manufacturing capacity and supply chain

To enable us to produce consistent and reproducible product at greater scale, in July 2018, we acquired and began renovating a 135,000 square foot cGMP manufacturing facility in Smithfield, RI. This manufacturing facility has been operational since January 2020 and is currently providing cGMP clinical supply for our ongoing RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 clinical trials.

​

In 2021, we achieved the following milestones:

​

​

​

​

As we look to the future, we are in the process of:

​

​

​

​

We have the potential to significantly expand our manufacturing capabilities and plan to stage additional investments based on future needs and in preparation for potential pivotal trials and eventual commercialization.

Suppliers

​

We have entered into agreements with a supplier of cGMP grade plasmids for lentiviral production, as well as a supplier of lentiviral vector. We have secured cGMP lentiviral vector production slots in support of our ongoing RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 clinical trials, and we are continually securing additional lentiviral production slots for the additional RCT product candidates that are projected to enter clinical trials.

Intellectual property

We have and continue to build a broad portfolio of patent applications, know how, trade secrets, and other intellectual property that covers our platform technologies as well as our product discoveries. We believe the breadth and depth of our intellectual property is a strategic asset that has the potential to provide us with a significant competitive advantage.

​

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 licensed from our collaborators or other third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to

28

Table of Contents

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, continuing innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of engineered red blood cell therapeutics. We additionally rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available and plan to seek and rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations. Our commercial success may 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; to maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patents; and to operate without infringing on the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

We believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to our proprietary product candidates, technology and platform, including related manufacturing processes and technology. As for our product candidates, platform, and the processes we develop and commercialize, in the normal course of business, we pursue, as appropriate, patent protection or trade secret protection relating to compositions, methods of use, treatment of indications, dosing, formulations and methods of manufacturing. Our lead product candidates – RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 – are covered by three varieties of U.S. patent claims: (1) composition of matter; (2) method of treatment; and (3) method of making. As of January 31, 2022, our patent portfolio consists of 24 patent families (not including provisional applications), including 14 issued U.S. patents, 13 patents issued outside the United States, 40 owned or in-licensed pending U.S. utility patent applications, and more than 160 owned or in-licensed pending patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States (including Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications) that, in many cases, are counterparts to the foregoing U.S. patents and patent applications. Our objective is to continue to expand our portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our product candidates and certain aspects of our RED PLATFORM and our manufacturing processes. Examples of the products and technology areas covered by our intellectual property portfolio are described below.

Disease-related intellectual property

The disease-related patent rights in our intellectual property portfolio relate to pathological conditions and disorders and provide coverage for RCT product candidates to specifically address those conditions and the associated disease states. The disease-related patent applications for our lead programs include those described below. Each of the disease-related patent rights and applications described below are owned by us and are not licensed from any third party:

RTX-240 and RTX-224 for certain oncology indications

We have developed RTX-240, an RCT product candidate that is engineered to express 4-1BBL and IL-15TP (a fusion of the cytokine IL-15 and IL-15 receptor alpha), for the treatment of patients suffering from hematological or solid cancers that have lost response to conventional therapies, including anti-PD-1 therapies or other immune-oncology therapies, and to prevent the emergence of resistance to checkpoint inhibitors and other immune-oncology therapies. RTX-240 induces the proliferation and activation of two key target cells, the NK cell and CD8+ memory T cell. Our development strategy for RTX-240 is focused on identifying those patient populations where the tumor would be susceptible to such a mechanism utilizing the biology of the NK response, as well as the memory T cells.

We have developed RTX-224, an RCT product candidate that is engineered to co-express 4-1BBL and IL-12, for the treatment of patients suffering from solid tumors where a T cell mechanism of action is critical. The introduction of membrane-bound IL-12 is thought to have very broad T cell-based activation, including all subsets of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, while sparing the induction of the CD4+ regulatory T cells.

29

Table of Contents

RTX-321, an artificial antigen presenting cell for the treatment of HPV-positive tumors

We have developed RTX-321, an artificial antigen presenting cell RCT, that is engineered to express an HPV 16 peptide antigen bound to MHC class I, 4-1BBL and IL-12 on the cell surface to mimic human T cell-APC interactions. RTX-321 is in development for the treatment of HPV 16-positive tumors.

Additional oncology intellectual property

We own disease-related patent applications directed to RCTs for use in oncology, including immuno-oncology. These patent applications relate to RCT compositions that comprise a variety of agents, including anti-tumor antibodies, tumor starvation enzymes, pro-apoptotic proteins, costimulatory molecules, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tumor antigens, MHC molecules and numerous combinations thereof. These patent applications also cover the use of RCTs to treat cancer, including lung cancer, melanoma, renal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, and acute myeloid leukemia, as well as various relapsed or refractory cancers.

We expect the patent applications in this portfolio, if issued, to expire between 2034 and 2040, without taking into account any patent term adjustments or extensions we may obtain.

Autoimmune disease intellectual property

We own disease-related patent applications directed to RCTs for use in treating autoimmune diseases. These patent applications relate to RCT compositions having autoimmune antigens, anti-cytokine antibodies, agents for cleaving autoimmune antibodies and numerous combinations thereof. The RCTs covered by these patent applications operate through various mechanisms, including through induction of tolerance to self-antigens, clearance of autoimmune antibodies from the bloodstream, clearance of cytokines from the bloodstream and inactivation of autoimmune antibodies. The patent applications also cover the use of these RCTs to treat a number of diseases, such as Type 1 diabetes, membranous nephropathy, autoimmune hepatitis, myasthenia gravis, celiac disease and neuromyelitis optica.

We expect the patent applications in this portfolio, if issued, to expire between 2034 and 2040, without taking into account any patent term adjustments or extensions we may obtain.

Cardio-metabolic disorders intellectual property

We own disease-related patent applications directed to RCT compositions and their use in treating cardiac disorders and metabolic disorders, including diabetes, obesity heart failure, atherosclerosis and hemophilia. We expect the patent

30

Table of Contents

applications in this portfolio, if issued, to expire in 2037, without taking into account any patent term adjustments or extensions we may obtain.

Infectious disease intellectual property

We own disease-related patent applications directed to RCT compositions and their use in treating infectious diseases, such as a viral infection (e.g., cytomegalovirus or HIV) or a bacterial infection (e.g., bacteremia). We expect the patent applications in this portfolio, if issued, to expire between 2034 and 2040 without taking into account any patent term adjustments or extensions we may obtain.

Platform-related intellectual property

In addition to the disease-related intellectual property, our intellectual property portfolio also includes know-how and patent applications directed to the RED PLATFORM and other technologies developed internally and exclusively in-licensed from the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, or WIBR, that relate to the engineering and culturing of RCTs. Exemplary platform technologies that are the subject of such patent applications include:

These platform technologies, and our intellectual property protection related thereto, are broadly applicable to our RCT product candidates.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new platform technologies and product candidates. To that end, we are prepared to file additional patent applications if our intellectual property strategy requires such filings, or where we seek to adapt to competition or seize business opportunities. Further, we are prepared to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumstances, relating to the new technologies that we develop. In addition to filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States, we often file counterpart patent applications in additional jurisdictions where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial, including but not limited to Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, and Japan.

Individual patent terms extend for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of patents outside of the United States varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

31

Table of Contents

Trademark protection

As of January 31, 2022, our trademark portfolio contains approximately 59 registrations and pending applications. For the RUBIUS THERAPEUTICS mark, we have issued registrations in the U.S., Argentina, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong, and an International Registration designating Australia, China, the E.U., India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland. In addition, we have two U.S. trademark registrations for the RUBIUS mark. For the RCT mark, we have a U.S. registration, as well as an International Registration designating China, the E.U., India, and Japan. Under this International Registration, the mark is registered in all listed countries. In addition, we have issued registrations for the RCT mark in the United Kingdom and Canada. We also have issued U.S. registrations for the RED CELL THERAPEUTICS mark, as well as an International Registration designating Japan. Under this International Registration, the mark is registered in Japan. In addition, we have a pending application in Singapore for the RED CELL THERAPEUTICS mark. We have issued registrations for the RED PLATFORM mark in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as well as an International Registration designating China, the E.U., India, Japan and Russia. Under this International Registration, the mark is registered in all listed countries. In addition, we have a registration for this mark in Canada. We have issued registrations for the REALIZING THE POWER OF RED mark in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as well as an International Registration designating Canada, China, the E.U., India, Japan, and Russia. Under this International Registration, the mark is pending in Canada only and is registered in all other listed countries. Finally, we have a U.S. registration for the RTX mark.

Trade secrets

We may also rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology and aspects of our platform. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or may be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and products, please see the section on “Risk factors—Risks related to intellectual property.”

Licenses

In January 2016, we entered into an exclusive license with WIBR that grants us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under patent rights comprising two patent families to research, develop, make and commercialize products and processes covered by such patent rights for all uses, or the WIBR License. The WIBR License was amended in December 2017 to grant us an exclusive license to the commercialization rights under a third patent family jointly owned by WIBR and Tufts University, or Tufts. The WIBR License was amended in July 2018 to grant us an exclusive license to the commercialization rights under a fourth patent family owned by WIBR. As of January 31, 2022, the patent portfolio licensed from WIBR includes two issued U.S. patents, and over 20 pending U.S. and foreign patent applications and issued foreign patents. We expect these WIBR-licensed patent applications, if issued, to expire between 2034 and 2038, without taking into account any patent term adjustments or extensions that may be obtained.

The patent rights licensed to us under the WIBR License are directed, in part, to the in vitro production of RBCs and the use of the enzyme sortase to conjugate a protein of interest to the cell surface. We have certain diligence obligations under the WIBR License, which include using commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize any products under the patents and achieving certain milestones as further described in the WIBR License. Additionally, under certain circumstances, we may in the future be obligated to negotiate in good faith field-limited, non-exclusive sublicenses to allow third parties to exploit the patent rights licensed to us under the WIBR License to develop and commercialize products that are not competitive with our products or product candidates.

32

Table of Contents

WIBR retains the right with respect to all four patent families licensed to us to (i) practice the patent rights licensed under the agreement for research, teaching and educational purposes, including sponsored research and collaboration, and (ii) grant non-exclusive licenses to academic and not-for-profit research institutes to practice under the patent rights for research, teaching and educational purposes (excluding sponsored research), while Tufts retains such rights only with respect to the patent family that it co-owns. Pursuant to a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency agreement between WIBR and a global biopharmaceutical company, the biopharmaceutical company funded research resulting in one of the licensed patent families and WIBR granted the biopharmaceutical company the right to retain a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use this patent family for research and development purposes. In addition, under the WIBR agreement, the U.S. federal government retains a royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to practice any government-funded invention claimed in the patent rights, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 201-211 and Executive Order 12591.

As partial consideration for the license, we issued 366,667 shares of our common stock to WIBR. In addition, we paid WIBR an upfront payment and are required to pay annual license maintenance fees, creditable against royalties and milestone payments. We are obligated to pay to WIBR low single-digit royalties based on annual net sales by us, our affiliates and our sublicensees of licensed products and licensed services that are covered by a valid claim of the licensed patent rights at the time and in the country of sale. On a country-by-country basis, upon expiration of the last valid claim of the licensed patent rights covering such licensed product or licensed service in such country, our license becomes royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable with respect to such country. Based on the progress we make in the advancement of products covered by the licensed patent rights, we are required to make aggregate milestone payments of up to $1.6 million upon the achievement of specified preclinical, clinical and regulatory milestones. In addition, we are required to pay to WIBR a percentage of the non-royalty payments that we receive from sublicensees of the patent rights licensed to us by WIBR. This percentage varies from low single digits to low double digits and will be based upon the clinical stage of the product at the time of the sublicense.

Under the WIBR License, WIBR controls the prosecution and maintenance of the patent rights licensed to us and we have the right to review and comment on such prosecution and maintenance. We have the first right to enforce the patent rights licensed to us against third party infringers. We may terminate the WIBR License for convenience upon three months prior written notice to WIBR. WIBR may terminate the WIBR License upon written notice to us if we, along with our affiliates and sublicensees, cease to carry on business related to the WIBR License for more than six months. WIBR may terminate the WIBR License for our material breach that remains uncured for sixty days after receiving notice thereof, if we fail to pay amounts due under the agreement within thirty days after receiving notice of such failure, or if we challenge the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patent rights.

Competition

In addition to the product specific competitors for each of the initial targets we are pursuing that are described elsewhere in this Annual Report, we have identified at least two companies that are leveraging the RBC as a platform: Erytech Pharma SA and SQZ Biotechnologies Company.

Erytech Pharma SA is using reversible hypotonic and hypertonic osmotic stress to encapsulate drug substances inside of red blood cells to create product candidates for use in cancer and orphan diseases.

SQZ Biotechnologies Company is pursuing applications in cancer, infectious diseases and autoimmune diseases using a variety of cell-based approaches, including red blood cells. The company’s red blood cell approach for cancer is to deliver antigens, as well as adjuvants inside of red blood cells to drive an immune response against target antigens. For autoimmune diseases, SQZ delivers antigens inside of red blood cells to be processed and induce tolerance.

Erytech Pharma SA and SQZ Biotechnologies Company are both developing product candidates using red blood cells loaded with agents inside the cells. In contrast, our flexible RED PLATFORM allows for expression of multiple proteins, for example, cytokines and other agents, inside or on the cell surface of red blood cells.

Outside of RBC-based competition, there are a number of companies competing in our target therapeutic areas. Within oncology, multiple large and small companies are developing novel immune stimulatory agents, such as Nektar

33

Table of Contents

Therapeutics, which is developing a polymer-conjugated IL-15, and Genmab, which is developing a bispecific antibody targeting PD-L1 and 4-1BB. Others are developing activated and engineered NK cell product candidates as cancer therapeutics against both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies, such as Fate Therapeutics. Many companies are developing therapies to generate antigen-specific immune responses against HPV-positive cancers, such as BioNTech SE using RNA and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. using DNA-based therapy. Finally, multiple companies are developing novel approaches to restore immune tolerance, such as Anokion SA, which is developing engineered proteins for the treatment of celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, Cour Pharmaceuticals, which is developing nanoparticle technology for the treatment of celiac disease, and Cellerys AG, which is developing a peptide-coupled cell therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

In addition to the companies described above, we anticipate competing with the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world, such as Novartis AG, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Amgen, Inc., F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Roche), Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, Inc.

Government regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, and any future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. biological product development

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

The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products must be approved by the FDA through the biologics license application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

34

Table of Contents

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 and any future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical studies and IND

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety and toxicology studies.

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold before such time. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. If the FDA’s concerns are not resolved, submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product 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 requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Each clinical trial of investigational cell and gene therapies must be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, for each clinical site. IBCs were established under the National Institute of Health, or NIH, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules to provide local review and oversight of nearly all forms of research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. In its review, the IBC assesses biosafety issues, specifically, safety practices and containment procedures, related to the investigational product and clinical study. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Such trials remain subject to FDA and other clinical trial regulations, and only after FDA, IBC, and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed. 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 reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must

35

Table of Contents

monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

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. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may be combined or 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. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic, as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, among other things. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

36

Table of Contents

BLA and FDA review process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, a request for approval to market the biological product for one or more specified indications, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. 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, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, the fiscal year 2022 application fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as a BLA, is $3,117,218. The sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual prescription drug program fee, which for fiscal year 2022 is $369,413. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted BLAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information or issue a refuse to file letter, rather than accepting the BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 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 designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process is often extended by the FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements and, if applicable, cGTP requirements. cGTP requirements are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the cGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their products with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and cGTP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data as part of the review process, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the process.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The CRL may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant

37

Table of Contents

may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if the BLA is resubmitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

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

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances. A product will not be considered the “same drug” if it is clinically superior to a product that has orphan drug exclusivity. Moreover, competitors may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication, but which could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If one of our products designated as an orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than that which is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity.

Expedited development and review programs

The FDA has several programs that are intended to expedite or facilitate the process for developing and reviewing new drugs and biologics that address serious and life-threatening conditions and meet certain other criteria. For example, new biologics are eligible for fast-track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast-track status any time before receiving BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-BLA meeting.

38

Table of Contents

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast-track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product may be eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review within six months of accepting the application for filing, rather than the standard 10-month review clock.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate 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, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval must perform confirmatory clinical trials to verify and describe the anticipated effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it will require such post-marketing restrictions, as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product.

Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as fast-track designation, plus intensive interaction and guidance from the FDA. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, but these can also be granted to the same product candidate if the relevant criteria are met. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy. All requests for breakthrough therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, and the FDA will either grant or deny the request.

Fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

Regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FDCA to create a pathway for expedited development and review of certain regenerative medicine therapies, which include cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Regenerative medicine therapies do not include those human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHSA and 21 CFR Part 1271. The program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, or RMATs, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

A sponsor may request that the FDA designate a drug as an RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. The FDA generally expects preliminary clinical evidence to be obtained from clinical investigations specifically conducted to assess the effects of the therapy on a serious condition, which could include well-designed retrospective studies or clinical case series, as appropriate, but the RMAT designation does not require evidence to indicate that the drug may offer a substantial improvement over existing therapies. Advantages of RMAT designation include all of the benefits of the fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs, including early interactions with the FDA. In addition, a product that receives RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review, and the FDA may grant accelerated approval to products that have RMAT designation based on (1) previously agreed-upon surrogate or intermediate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit; or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites, as appropriate. Another benefit of RMAT designation is that may enable to the sponsor to meet post-approval requirements

39

Table of Contents

beyond the completion of traditional confirmatory clinical trials. The FDA has indicated that post-approval requirements for RMATs receiving accelerated approval can potentially be met through:

As with breakthrough designation, an RMAT designation is not the same as an approval and does not change the statutory standards for demonstration of safety and effectiveness needed for marketing approval.

Pediatric information

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

Post-marketing requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that biological products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations and, in some cases, cGTP regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for certain aspects of the production of clinical and, if approved, commercial quantities of our product candidates in

40

Table of Contents

accordance with cGMP and cGTP regulations. We and these manufacturers must comply with cGMP and cGTP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP or cGTP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and, if applicable, cGTP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP and cGTP compliance. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements.

After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHS Act also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend biologics licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases within the United States.

Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market, restrictions on the manufacturer or holder of the BLA for the product, as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market.

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval, if any, of RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 and any future product candidates should such approval be obtained, some 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, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the

41

Table of Contents

FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the ACA. This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biological product is granted four- and twelve-year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and the FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

European Union drug development

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

42

Table of Contents

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

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

The new Regulation overhauls the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the E.U. Specifically, the new Regulation, which will be directly applicable in all Member States (meaning no national implementing legislation in each E.U. Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the E.U. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts (Part I contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review by the competent authorities of all E.U. Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned) of a draft report prepared by a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned E.U. Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

European Union drug review and approval

In the E.U., medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of marketing authorizations.

43

Table of Contents

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the E.U. Member States make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Now that the United Kingdom (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the E.U., Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized MAs will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized MA were automatically converted to Great Britain MAs on January, 1 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new MA in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain MA. A separate application will, however, still be required. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to MAs approved in E.U. Member States through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures with a view to more quickly granting an MA in the United Kingdom or Great Britain.

European Union new chemical entity exclusivity

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

European Union orphan drug designation and exclusivity

In the E.U., the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that (1) are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically

44

Table of Contents

debilitating conditions; (2) either (i) such condition affects not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the E.U. or (ii) where it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicine, without the benefit derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment has been authorized for marketing in the E.U., or, if such a method exists, the product would be a significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

In the E.U., orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following medicinal product approval. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission nor any of the competent authorities in the E.U. Members States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Market exclusivity may also be revoked in very select cases, such as if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized product; (ii) the marketing authorization holder consents to such revocation; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

European Union drug marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States discussed below, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of E.U. Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

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

The aforementioned E.U. rules are generally applicable in the EEA.

European data collection

The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, in the E.U. is governed by, as of May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR. The GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA to the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the related national data protection laws of the E.U. Member States may result in fines and other administrative penalties. The GDPR introduces data protection requirements in the E.U. and substantial fines for breaches of the data protection rules. The GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, further to the United Kingdom’s, or the UK’s, exit from the E.U. on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020, but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law (referred to as the 'UK GDPR'). The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the E.U.’s data

45

Table of Contents

protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the E.U. GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the E.U. to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the E.U. GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing).

For more information related to GDPR, please see “Risk Factors—Risks related to government regulation—European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information.”

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as Brexit), and the UK formally left the E.U. on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which E.U. pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the UK, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the E.U. and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement, or TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and E.U. pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented E.U. legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the E.U. regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore largely aligns with current E.U. regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the E.U. and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and E.U. pharmaceutical legislation.

Rest of the world regulation

For other countries outside of the E.U., U.K. and the United States, 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.

Additional laws and regulations governing international operations

If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign

46

Table of Contents

officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The Securities and Exchange Commission also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Coverage and reimbursement

Successful commercialization of new drug and biologic products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for those drug and biologic products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations.

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all, or part, of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford many treatments. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

In the United States, the important decisions about reimbursement for new drug and biologic products are made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as well as major health insurers. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug and biologic products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug and biologic products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

​

​

​

​

47

Table of Contents

​

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also called the Medicare Modernization Act, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug and biologic benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs and biologics. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs and biologics, and each drug plan can develop its own formulary that identifies which drugs and biologics it will cover, and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include products within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs and biologics in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs and biologics may increase demand for products for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug or biologic product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price, or AMP, and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. Further, on December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a recent reimbursement formula change instituted by CMS under the 340B program. The HHS appealed the lower court’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 15, 2019. On July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. On Friday July 2, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the petition. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the NIH, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures are made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our product candidates. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s drug could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis.

These current laws and state and federal healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control as part of national health systems in many countries. In general, the prices of drug and biologic products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug and biologic products but monitor and control company profits. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Accordingly,

48

Table of Contents

in markets outside the United States the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States.

Other healthcare laws

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Arrangements with third party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose a pharmaceutical or biologics manufacturer to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below:

49

Table of Contents

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Efforts to ensure that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, integrity and oversight agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, individual imprisonment, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business. In addition, commercialization of any of our products outside the United States will also likely be subject to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In particular, in 2010 the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules

50

Table of Contents

that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administrations or other efforts, if any, to challenge repeal or replace the ACA, will impact our business.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 also amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole,” which will shift costs for name brand drugs away from Part D participants back to the manufacturers, which could have a negative effect on our profits in the event any of our products receive FDA approval and CMS reimbursement.

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

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. At a federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drugs and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. For biological products in particular, the Executive Order also directs FDA to: continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for biosimilars, including the standards for interchangeability of biological products; facilitate the

51

Table of Contents

development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products; clarify existing requirements and procedures related to the review and submission of BLAs; and identify and address any efforts to impede biosimilar competition. The FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021, CMS announced rescinded the MFN Model. Additionally, on December 2, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. On December 2, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Further, implementation of this change and new safe harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and pharmacy benefit manager service fees are currently under review by the Biden administration and may be amended or repealed. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

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. Legislative and regulatory proposals, and enactment of laws, at the foreign, federal and state levels, directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, will continue into the future.

Other Regulations

We are subject to numerous foreign, federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition, our leasing and operation of real property may subject us to liability pursuant to certain U.S. environmental laws and regulations, under which current or previous owners or operators of real property and entities that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances may be held strictly, jointly and severally liable for the cost of investigating or remediating contamination caused by hazardous substance releases, even if they did not know of and were not responsible for the releases.

Human Capital Resources

As of January 31, 2022, we had 269 full-time employees, all of whom are in the United States, and 225 of whom are engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee relations to be positive.

We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries and bonuses, opportunities for equity ownership, development programs that enable continued learning and growth and a robust employment package that promotes well-

52

Table of Contents

being across all aspects of their lives, including health care, retirement planning and paid time off. As part of our promotion and retention efforts, we also invest in ongoing leadership development programs. In addition, we regularly conduct an employee survey to gauge employee engagement and identify areas of focus.

Much of our success is rooted in the diversity of our teams and our commitment to inclusion. We value diversity at all levels and continue to focus on extending our diversity and inclusion initiatives across our entire workforce, from working with managers to develop strategies for building diverse teams to promoting the advancement of leaders from different backgrounds.

Facilities

Our corporate headquarters is located in approximately 85,000 square feet of office and laboratory space at 399 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lease term for approximately 48,000 square feet expires in January 2027 and the lease term for the remaining 37,000 square feet expires in August 2028.

We own a 135,000 square foot clinical manufacturing facility located in Smithfield, Rhode Island.

Legal proceedings

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

Corporate Information

Rubius was incorporated in April 2013 as VL26, Inc. under the laws of the State of Delaware. In January 2015, the Company changed its name to Rubius Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive office is located at 399 Binney Street, 3rd Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and our telephone number is (617) 679-9600.

Financial Information and Segments

The financial information required under this Item 1 is incorporated herein by reference to the section of this Annual Report titled “Part II—Item 8—Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. The company manages its operations as a single segment for the purposes of assessing performance and making operating decisions. The company is developing RCTs for the treatment of patients with severe diseases. All of the company’s tangible assets are held in the United States. See Note 2 to our consolidated audited financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. For financial information regarding our business, see “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our consolidated audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Available Information

Our Internet address is www.rubiustx.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors and Media” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not to be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and is not part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings, unless specifically incorporated herein by reference, and should not be relied upon in making a decision as to whether or not to purchase our common stock. Our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

​

​

53

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

​

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations,” and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations.

​

Risks related to our financial condition and capital requirements

​

We have incurred net losses in every year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.

​

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception in 2013. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, we reported net losses of $196.5 million, $167.7 million, and $163.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $677.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

54

Table of Contents

​

To become and remain profitable, we or any potential future collaborator must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential at an adequate profit margin after cost of goods sold and other expenses. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for product candidates, obtaining adequate reimbursement for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and 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 also could cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

​

Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

​

We will require additional capital to fund our operations and if we fail to obtain necessary financing, we will not be able to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

​

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to conduct further research and development and preclinical or nonclinical testing and studies and clinical trials of our current and future programs, to build a supply chain, including through operating our own manufacturing facility, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and to launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval, including potentially building our own commercial organization. As of December 31, 2021, we had $225.8 million of cash and investments. Before consideration of management’s plans described below, based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and investments, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2023. However, our future capital requirements and the period for which our existing resources will support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we will in any event require additional capital in order to complete clinical development of any of our current programs. Our monthly spending levels will vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including:

​

​

​

​

​

55

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

Accordingly, until we can generate sufficient product or royalty revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we will need to seek additional funding in connection with our continuing operations and business objectives and expect to finance our operations through a combination of public and private equity financings, debt financings, borrowings under credit facilities, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution and licensing arrangements. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize any of our approved drugs or drug candidates. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. If we are unable to obtain funding, we will implement an operating plan that scales back our operations and focuses our available capital on a reduced number of activities and programs, which we believe will enable the continued advancement of certain of our research and development programs and the preservation of our technology platform. These actions could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline. After considering management’s plans described above, we have the ability to fund our operating costs and working capital needs into the middle of 2023.

​

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

​

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity financings, debt financings, borrowings under credit facilities, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible into, or exchangeable for, common stock, our stockholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect their rights as a stockholder.

​

If we raise additional funds through licensing, marketing or distribution arrangements or other collaborations or strategic alliances with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us. We also could be required to seek collaborators for one or more of our current or future product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable.

​

56

Table of Contents

We have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, pursuant to which we may, from time to time, sell up to an aggregate of $250.0 million (as of December 31, 2021) of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants or units. Future sales of securities under the registration statement (or otherwise) would result in dilution of our stockholders and could have a negative impact on our stock price.

​

The terms of our debt facility place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility, and failure to comply with covenants or to satisfy certain conditions of the agreement governing the debt facility may result in acceleration of our repayment obligations and foreclosure on our pledged assets, which could significantly harm our liquidity, financial condition, operating results, business and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

​

Our loan and security agreement with SLR Investment Corp. (formerly Solar Capital Ltd.), or the Loan Agreement, is collateralized by a lien covering substantially all of our assets, excluding intellectual property, but including proceeds from the sale, license, or disposition of our intellectual property, under which, as of December 31, 2021, we have borrowed $75.0 million.

​

The Loan Agreement requires us to comply with a number of covenants (affirmative and negative), including restrictive covenants that limit our ability, subject to certain exceptions, to: incur additional indebtedness; encumber the collateral securing the loan; acquire, own or make investments; repurchase or redeem any class of stock or other equity interest; declare or pay any cash dividend or make a cash distribution on any class of stock or other equity interest; transfer a material portion of our assets; acquire other businesses; and merge or consolidate with or into any other organization or otherwise suffer a change in control.

​

Although we extended the repayment date under the Loan Agreement to 2024 pursuant to the amendment to the Loan Agreement entered into in June 2021, there is no guarantee that we will have sufficient funds available to repay the amounts outstanding when due. If we default under the facility, the lenders may accelerate all of our repayment obligations and, if we are unable to access funds to meet those obligations or to renegotiate our agreement, the lenders could take control of the collateral securing such obligations and, as a result, we may need to cease operations. If we were to renegotiate our agreement under such circumstances, the terms may be significantly less favorable to us. If we were liquidated, the lender’s right to repayment would be senior to the rights of our stockholders to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Any declaration of the Collateral Agent of an event of default could significantly harm our liquidity, financial condition, operating results, business, and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

​

The incurrence of additional indebtedness, if available and permitted, would increase our fixed payment obligations and could subject us to additional, more burdensome covenants restricting or limiting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends, or acquiring or licensing intellectual property rights. We may also be required to secure any such debt obligations with some or all of our assets. For example, our Loan Agreement is secured by substantially all of our property and assets, except for intellectual property.

​

Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and stock price.

​

Our results of operations and general business strategy could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. In the past several years, global credit and financial markets have experienced volatility, instability and disruptions, including as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. From time to time, this volatility, instability and disruption has caused, and may cause in the future, severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. For example, since early 2020, the coronavirus, or COVID-19, pandemic has caused disruption in the financial markets both globally and in the United States. While certain negative effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have lessened as vaccines are distributed and administered and prevention and treatment methods improve, there have been and may continue to be resurgences of cases, including as a result of the emergence of variants that may be more contagious or more resistant to the vaccine and treatment options available, placing renewed and prolonged strain on both health care facilities and our workforce. Given the inter-connectivity of the global

57

Table of Contents

economy, pandemic disease and health events have the potential to continue to negatively impact economic activities in many countries, including the United States. The ongoing spread of the coronavirus, including variants thereof and resurgences in geographies experiencing some relief, could have a negative material impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

​

In addition, our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, or do not improve, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay, scale back or abandon the development or commercialization of one or more of our product candidates or one or more of our other research and development initiatives. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, manufacturers or other partners may not survive these difficult economic times, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.

​

Political development can also lead to uncertainty to regulations and rules that may materially affect our business. For example, Brexit could result in the United Kingdom or the European Union significantly altering its regulations affecting the clearance or approval of our drug or drug candidates that are developed in the United Kingdom. Any new regulations could add time and expense to the conduct of our business, as well as the process by which our drug candidates receive regulatory approval in the United Kingdom, the European Union and elsewhere. In addition, the announcement of Brexit and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union have had and may continue to have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets and may significantly reduce global market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. Any of these effects of Brexit, among others, could adversely affect our business, our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

​

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $225.8 million. While we are not aware of any downgrades, material losses, or other significant deterioration in the fair value of our cash equivalents since December 31, 2021, no assurance can be given that further deterioration of the global credit and financial markets would not negatively impact our current portfolio of cash equivalents or our ability to meet our financing objectives. Furthermore, our stock price may decline due in part to the volatility of the stock market and the general economic downturn.

​

Changes in tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

​

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our business. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

​

The amount of and our ability to use net operating losses and research and development credits to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations and uncertainty.

​

As of December 31, 2021, we had federal and state net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of $534.2 million and $534.8 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future taxable income. The federal NOLs include $37.2 million which expire at various dates through 2037 and $497.0 million which carryforward indefinitely. The state NOLs expire at various dates through 2041. As of December 31, 2021, we also had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $22.7 million and $15.6 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future tax liabilities and begin to expire in 2034 and 2026, respectively.

​

Federal NOLs generated in taxable years after December 31, 2017 generally may not be carried back to prior taxable years, and while such federal NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 will not be subject to

58

Table of Contents

expiration, the deduction for such NOL in any taxable year will be limited to 80% of our taxable income in such year, where taxable income is determined without regard to the NOL deduction itself. However, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act repeals the 80% limitation on the utilization of such federal NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and beginning before January 1, 2021 and allows for federal NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021, to be carried back to each of the five taxable years preceding the taxable year in which the loss arises. It is uncertain whether this change in law temporarily allowing for the carryback of federal NOLs will produce any material benefit for our business.

​

In addition, in general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs or tax credits, or NOLs or credits (including federal research and development tax credits), to offset future taxable income or taxes. For these purposes, an ownership change generally occurs where the aggregate stock ownership of one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period. Our existing NOLs or credits may be subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, including in connection with our earlier private placements, IPO, our recent underwritten offering and other transactions. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code and limit our ability to utilize our NOLs and our credits. Our NOLs or credits may also be impaired under state law. Accordingly, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs or credits. Furthermore, our ability to utilize our NOLs or credits is conditioned upon our attaining profitability and generating U. S. federal and state taxable income. As described above under this section captioned “Risk factors—Risks related to our financial condition and capital requirements,” we have incurred significant net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future; and therefore, we do not know whether or when we will generate the U.S. federal or state taxable income necessary to utilize our NOLs or credits that are subject to limitation by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code.

​

Risks related to future performance

​

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and product development capabilities and predict our future performance.

​

We are early in our development efforts for our lead oncology product candidates, RTX-240 and RTX-224, and our lead aAPC therapy product candidate, RTX-321, each in Phase 1 clinical trials. We were formed in 2013, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. All of our programs require additional preclinical research and development, clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, our product candidates must be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other health regulatory agencies, such as the EMA, before we may commercialize any product. Our ability to generate product revenue or profits, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur.

​

Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving cellular therapeutics field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our short history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer. Similarly, we expect that our financial condition and operating results will fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result, our shareholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual period as an indicator of future operating performance.

​

In addition, as an early-stage company, we have encountered unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown circumstances, including, for example, the manufacturing and enrollment challenges we faced in connection with our Phase 1b clinical trial for RTX-134, which we discontinued in March 2020.

59

Table of Contents

​

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidates targeting cancer and autoimmune diseases. All of our product candidates will require significant additional nonclinical and clinical development before we can seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially.

​

Our business and future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval of and then successfully launch and commercialize our initial product candidates targeting cancer and autoimmune diseases, including RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 and others that may be selected from our preclinical programs. We are currently dosing patients in the ongoing Phase 1/2 trial of RTX-240 in advanced solid tumors (including the Phase 1 arm of RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab), the Phase 1 trial of RTX-240 in relapsed/refractory AML, the Phase 1 trial of RTX-321 for the treatment of advanced human papillomavirus, or HPV, 16-positive cancers and the Phase 1/2 trial of RTX-224 for the treatment of advanced solid tumors. However, we may experience delays or setbacks in advancing these product candidates. In particular, RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, as our first oncology clinical programs, may experience preliminary complications surrounding trial execution, such as complexities surrounding trial design, establishing trial protocols and interpretability of results, clinical site access and initiation, patient recruitment and enrollment, quality and supply of clinical doses, safety issues, or a lack of clinically relevant activity. For example, we encountered manufacturing and enrollment challenges in connection with our Phase 1b clinical trial for our discontinued product candidate, RTX-134.

​

All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and will require additional nonclinical and clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, because RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 are our most advanced current product candidates, if any such product candidates encounter safety, efficacy, supply or manufacturing problems, developmental or unexpected delays, regulatory or commercialization issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

​

The successful development of cellular therapeutics, such as our investigational RCTs, is highly uncertain.

​

Successful development of cellular therapeutics, such as our RCTs, is highly uncertain and is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Cellular therapeutics that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

60

Table of Contents

The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority may be difficult to predict for cellular therapies, in large part because of the limited regulatory history.

​

Even if we are successful in obtaining market approval, commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Government authorities and third-party payors may decide which medications to pay for and establish their own reimbursement levels, limit the definition of the target treatment population to one smaller than that implied in the label granted by regulatory authorities, and could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost-effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement levels for one any of our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be reduced.

​

In addition, if any of our products are approved for marketing, we will be subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding the submission of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration and will need to continue to comply (or ensure that our third-party providers comply) with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and good clinical practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, there is always the risk that we or a regulatory authority might identify previously unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these requirements is costly and any failure to comply or other issues with our product candidates post-approval could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Our RCT product candidates are based on a new technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval, if at all.

​

Our RCT technology is relatively new and no products based on biologically engineered red blood cells have been approved to date in the United States or the European Union. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the challenges we may experience with our product candidates as they proceed through product discovery or identification, preclinical studies and clinical trials.

​

In addition, because we have not completed any clinical trials, we have not yet been able to meaningfully assess safety of our RCT technology in humans, and there may be short-term or long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop that we cannot predict at this time. Further, animal models may not exist for some of the diseases we choose to pursue in our programs. Cellular therapies, such as our RCT product candidates, have a limited circulating time in animals as they are recognized as foreign by the host animal and therefore cleared by the complement-mediated reticuloendothelial system, which limits the safety and toxicology assessments that we can conduct in preclinical studies.

​

As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our RED PLATFORM, or any similar or competitive cellular technologies, will result in the successful identification, development, and regulatory approval of any product candidates. Any development problems we experience in the future related to our RED PLATFORM or any of our research programs could cause significant delays or unanticipated costs and may be challenging or impossible to resolve. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we have initiated or may in the future initiate or commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

​

The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA 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 product candidate. Because no product based on biologically engineered red blood cells has been approved to date by regulators, the regulatory approval process and timeline for product candidates such

61

Table of Contents

as ours are uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process and timeline for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or the European Union or other regions of the world or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could result in increased costs and decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

​

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or our guidance.

​

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future, which makes it difficult for us to predict our future operating results. From time to time, we may enter into license or collaboration agreements with other companies that include development funding and significant upfront and milestone payments and/or royalties, which may become an important source of our revenue. Accordingly, our revenue may depend on development funding and the achievement of development and clinical milestones under any potential future license and collaboration agreements and sales of our products, if approved. These upfront and milestone payments may vary significantly from period to period and any such variance could cause a significant fluctuation in our operating results from one period to the next.

​

In addition, we measure compensation cost for stock-based awards made to employees, directors and non-employee consultants based on the fair value of the award on either the grant date or service completion date, and we recognize the cost as an expense over the recipient’s service period. Because the variables that we use as a basis for valuing stock-based awards change over time, including our underlying stock price and stock price volatility, the magnitude of the expense that we must recognize may vary significantly.

​

Furthermore, our operating results may fluctuate due to a variety of other factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

62

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

The cumulative effect of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated revenue and/or earnings guidance we may provide.

​

Risks related to product development and clinical trials

The FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities may implement additional regulations or restrictions on the development and commercialization of our product candidates, which may be difficult to predict.

The FDA, the EMA and regulatory authorities in other countries have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology products, such as cellular therapies. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. Adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, the EMA governs the development of cellular therapies in the European Union and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cellular therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Regulatory authorities in different jurisdictions do not always agree on required nonclinical or clinical data or other requirements for product development and approval and may provide contradictory guidance, thus potentially further complicating or delaying product development or approval. Additionally, any delays in the regulatory approval process resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could increase our costs and negatively impact our ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

​

63

Table of Contents

Clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our products are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful, and a clinical trial can fail at any stage of testing. The outcome of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in nonclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a BLA to the FDA, a marketing authorization application, or MAA, to the EMA, and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We do not know whether any of our planned clinical trials will begin or, if any clinical trials we have commenced or will commence in the future will be completed on schedule, if at all.

In addition, certain of our product candidate development programs contemplate the development of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation as medical devices and must themselves be cleared or approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize our products. We may experience numerous unforeseen events that could delay or prevent our ability to initiate or complete our preclinical or nonclinical testing and studies or our clinical trials, receive marketing approval or launch and commercialize our product candidates, including:

64

Table of Contents

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or recommended for suspension or termination by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial. A suspension or termination may be imposed due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product or treatment, failure to establish or achieve clinically meaningful trial endpoints, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Further, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials or may change the requirements for approval even after they have reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials we conduct may be open label in study design and may be conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical

65

Table of Contents

trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our studies of RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 include an open-label dosing design, the results from these clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with these or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical or nonclinical testing and studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or nonclinical testing and studies or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our nonclinical or future clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

​

Preclinical development is uncertain. Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

​

All but three of our current product candidates are still in the preclinical stage, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned INDs in the United States, or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications, or subsequent protocol amendments, for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing testing and clinical trials to begin or proceed, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that lead to the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or similar application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.

​

Our ongoing and planned clinical trials or those of our future collaborators may reveal significant adverse events not seen in our preclinical or nonclinical studies and may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

​

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any products, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. 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. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. As is the case with many treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with their use. For example, our RCTs are produced from O negative donor blood stem cells and we believe can therefore be used as allogeneic therapies in approximately 95% of patients. However, following repeated dosing, some patients may develop antibodies to blood antigens on our RCTs. These antibodies could reduce the efficacy of our RCTs or result in undesirable side effects.

​

66

Table of Contents

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials also may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products and there can be no assurance that any of our current or future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates.

​

We intend to develop RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, and may develop future product candidates, alone and in combination with one or more cancer therapies. The uncertainty resulting from the use of our product candidates in combination with other cancer therapies may make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials.

​

Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. Further, if significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or the FDA 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, or interrupt, delay or halt the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates. Although our RCTs are designed to be enucleated, a small percentage of cells in our product candidates may retain nuclei, which could result in unexpected or undesirable side effects. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may cause delays in such approval, result in a more restrictive label or inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability or label versus other therapies.

 ​

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate. If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar drugs) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including that regulatory authorities may withdraw or limit their approval of such product candidates, we may be subject to regulatory investigations and government enforcement actions, we may be required to change the way such product candidates are distributed or administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the product candidates and our reputation may suffer.

​

We believe that any of these events or developments could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

​

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

​

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

67

Table of Contents

Our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials of product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our 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 trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Additionally, 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 in such clinical trial sites. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for our targeted therapeutic areas, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional or newly launched competitive therapies, rather than enroll patients in any future clinical trial. Over the last few months, we have experienced patient enrollment challenges in our Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-321, likely as a result of the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on staffing and site activation in general, alongside more competition for patient enrollment. Although the overall impact has been minimal, if competition for patient enrollment continues to increase, including as a result of prolonged impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, our clinical trial timing could be delayed.

​

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

​

Interim, top-line and preliminary data 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 data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data. Interim, preliminary or top-line data 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

68

Table of Contents

enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or top-line data 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 should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

​

Positive results from early preclinical studies or early clinical trials of our product candidates are not necessarily predictive of the results of later preclinical studies or any future clinical trials of our product candidates. If we cannot replicate the positive results from our earlier preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials in our later preclinical studies or future clinical trials, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates.

​

Any positive results from our preclinical studies or early clinical trials of our product candidates may not necessarily be predictive of the results from required later preclinical studies or future clinical trials. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our ongoing or planned preclinical studies or clinical trials according to our current development timeline, the positive results from such preclinical studies or clinical trials may not be replicated in subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trial results.

​

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical and other nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or EMA approval.

​

We expect to develop RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224, and potentially future product candidates, alone and in combination with other therapies, and safety or supply issues with combination-use products may delay or prevent development and approval of our product candidates.

​

We intend to develop RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 and likely other product candidates alone and in combination with one or more cancer therapies, both approved and unapproved. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidate or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our product candidates for use in combination with other drugs for indications other than cancer. Similarly, if the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

​

We may also evaluate RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 or any future product candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. We will not be able to market and sell RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 or any other product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. The regulations prohibiting the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA and other government agencies. In addition, there are additional risks similar to the ones

69

Table of Contents

described for our products currently in development and clinical trials that result from the fact that such cancer therapies are unapproved, such as the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

​

If the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States do not approve these other drugs or revoke their approval, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 or any other product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market RTX-240, RTX-321, RTX-224 or any such other product candidate.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for regulatory approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates, as we did in the past with RTX-134, or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs 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 product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional product candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize development of certain product candidates, which may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

​

Although we intend to explore other therapeutic opportunities in addition to the product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify viable new product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential product candidates, our business could be materially harmed.

​

Research programs to pursue the development of our existing and planned product candidates for additional indications and to identify new product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

​

​

​

​

Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates, as we did in the past with RTX-134, or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

​

70

Table of Contents

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our product candidates or to develop suitable potential product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

​

Risks related to sales, marketing and competition

​

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for other therapies or who have failed prior treatments and may be small, and our estimates of the prevalence of our target patient populations may be inaccurate.

​

Cancer and autoimmune therapies are sometimes characterized as first-line, second-line, third-line and even fourth-line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for last-line use. Initial approvals for new cancer and autoimmune therapies are often restricted to later lines of therapy, and in the case of cancer specifically, for patients with advanced or metastatic disease. This will limit the number of patients who may be eligible for such new therapies, which may include our product candidates.

​

Our projections of both the number of people who have the diseases we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these diseases in a position to receive our therapies, if approved, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, input from key opinion leaders, patient foundations, or secondary market research databases, and may prove to be incorrect. For example, the number of new products in development for the diseases we are targeting continues to grow, and it is conceivable that patients will have multiple treatment options in the future. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Furthermore, regulators and payors may further narrow the therapy-accessible treatment population. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because certain of the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

​

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

​

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds, drugs, cellular or gene therapies that are able to achieve similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff, experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug, biologic, cellular or gene therapy products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety, tolerability, reliability, convenience of use, price and reimbursement.

​

We anticipate competing with the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world, as well as a broad range of smaller biotechnology companies which are currently conducting research in cellular therapies, either alone or in partnerships with other parties, and all of which have or may have greater financial and human resources than we currently have. In

71

Table of Contents

addition to these fully integrated biopharmaceutical companies, we also compete with those companies whose products target the same indications as our product candidates. Many third parties compete with us in developing various approaches to cancer and autoimmune therapies. They include pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions and other research organizations. Any treatments developed by our competitors could be superior to our RCT product candidates. It is possible that these competitors will succeed in developing technologies that are more effective than our RCTs or that would render our cancer targeted RCTs obsolete or noncompetitive. We anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as additional companies enter our market and scientific developments surrounding other cancer and autoimmune therapies continue to accelerate.

​

There are at least two companies leveraging red blood cells to develop therapeutics for cancer and/or immune tolerance. Erytech Pharma SA is using reversible hypotonic and hypertonic osmotic stress to encapsulate drug substances inside of red blood cells to create product candidates for use in cancer and orphan diseases. SQZ Biotechnologies Company is pursuing applications in cancer, infectious disease and autoimmune diseases using a variety of cell-based approaches, including red blood cells.

​

Outside of RBC-based competition, there are a number of companies competing in our target therapeutic areas. Within oncology, multiple large and small companies are developing novel immune stimulatory agents, such as Nektar Therapeutics, which is developing a polymer-conjugated IL-15, and Genmab, which is developing a bispecific antibody targeting PD-L1 and 4-1BB. Others are developing activated and engineered NK cell product candidates as cancer therapeutics against both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies, such as Fate Therapeutics. Many companies are developing therapies to generate antigen-specific immune responses against HPV-positive cancers, such as BioNTech SE using RNA and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. using DNA-based therapy. Finally, multiple companies are developing novel approaches to restore immune tolerance, such as Anokion SA, which is developing engineered proteins for celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, Cour Pharmaceuticals, which is developing nanoparticle technology for the treatment of celiac disease, and Cellerys AG, which is developing a peptide-coupled cell therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

​

In addition to the companies described above, we anticipate competing with the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world, such as Novartis AG, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Amgen, Inc., F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Roche), Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, Inc.

​

Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

​

Even if a product candidate we develop 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.

​

If any product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, whether as a single agent or in combination with other therapies, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. For example, other cancer treatments like chemotherapy, radiation therapy and immunotherapy are well established in the medical community, and doctors may continue to rely on these therapies. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

​

​

​

72

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

If our product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians and payors, we may not recognize sufficient revenue from our product candidates to become or remain profitable. Before granting reimbursement approval, healthcare payors may require us to demonstrate that our product candidates, in addition to treating these target indications, also provide incremental health benefits to patients. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors about the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

​

Cellular therapies are a novel approach and negative perception of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

​

Cellular therapies in general, and RCTs in particular, remain novel and unproven therapies, with no biologically engineered red blood cell therapy approved to date in the United States or the European Union. RCTs may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR-Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects and even mortality and their broader use may therefore be limited. Although our RCTs are fundamentally different than these earlier cellular therapies, they may be viewed in the same vein, limiting their market acceptance. Further, with respect to our RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 programs, the use of potent T cell and NK cell stimulation as a potential treatment for solid or hematological cancers is a recent scientific development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community.

​

Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop. In addition, responses by the U.S., state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial

73

Table of Contents

condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop.

​

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

​

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. We may develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. In the event we develop and deploy these capabilities, we will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

​

In addition to establishing internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products, however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

​

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas.

​

A variety of risks associated with marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

​

We plan to seek regulatory approval of our product candidates outside of the United States and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

74

Table of Contents

​

​

These and other risks associated with our international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

​

Risks related to our business operations

​

The effects of health epidemics like the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including recurring surges and waves of infection and emergent variants of the coronavirus, in regions where we, or the third parties on which we rely, have business operations could adversely impact our business, including our clinical supply, preclinical studies and ongoing and planned clinical trials. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could materially affect our operations, including at our headquarters in Massachusetts and our manufacturing facility in Rhode Island, as well as the businesses or operations of our contract research organizations, or CROs, or other third parties with whom we conduct business.

​

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, national, state, and local governments have continued to implement orders and recommendations to attempt to reduce the further spread of the disease, including travel restrictions, limitations on public gatherings, remote schooling, social distancing requirements and limitations on services and infrastructure. Although many restrictions have been eased or lifted in light of vaccination rates and as cases in the United States, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have decreased, protocols may be reinstated or become more restrictive if the United States or certain areas experience a resurgence of infections, as has been the case with the Omicron variant.

Fluctuation in infection rates in the regions in which we have business operations has resulted in periodic changes in restrictions that vary from region to region and require vigilant attention and rapid response to new or reinstated restrictions. The duration and severity of the pandemic, as well as periodic spikes in infection rates, new strains of the virus that causes COVID-19, local outbreaks and resurgence of the virus, and the broad availability of effective vaccines and treatments have impacted, and may continue to impact, our preclinical studies and clinical trial operations. Our suppliers and vendors are subject to such restrictions and orders and have been and may continue to be impacted. While not materially adversely affected, our business continues to experience the impact of COVID-19 on our supply chain, vendor operations and clinical trial activities. The ultimate extent of such impact, including on the supply chain for our candidates and our preclinical and clinical trial activities, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the pandemic, the severity of COVID-19, or the effectiveness of actions and vaccinations to contain and treat COVID-19. The continued effects of COVID-19 globally, including the identification of new strains of COVID-19, could continue to adversely impact our preclinical studies and clinical trials in the United States, including our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19 if an outbreak occurs in their geography. COVID-19 may also affect employees of third-party CROs located in affected geographies that we will rely upon to carry out our clinical trials. Any continuing negative impact COVID-19 has on patient enrollment or treatment, including access to study sites, availability of study data, or the advancement of our current product candidates and any future product candidates could cause costly delays to clinical trial activities, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our current product candidates and any future product candidates, increase our operating expenses, and have a material adverse effect on our financial results. To the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and financial results and those of third parties on which we rely, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Further, we have begun to see the effect that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had on enrollment in our clinical trials due to, among other reasons, staffing challenges at our clinical trial sites and site availability generally. Key clinical trial activities, such as site monitoring, have experienced interruptions due to restrictions in travel, and some patients have been, and may continue to be, unwilling to enroll in our trials or unable to comply with clinical trial protocols, including as a result of quarantines or travel restrictions which impede patient movement or interrupt

75

Table of Contents

healthcare services. Such interruptions to clinical activities and impacts on enrollment could delay our ability to conduct clinical trials or release clinical trial results. While not material, the spread of COVID-19 has in some cases negatively affected the operations at our third-party vendors, which has resulted in delays and disruptions in the supply of some components of our current product candidates and could impact the supply of any future product candidates. In addition, we have taken and may continue to take temporary precautionary measures intended to help minimize the risk of the virus to our employees, including temporarily requiring all employees to work remotely, suspending all non-essential travel worldwide for our employees, and discouraging employee attendance at industry events and in-person work-related meetings, which could negatively affect our business.

Additionally, since the beginning of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, three vaccines for COVID-19 have received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and two of those later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, has in some instances made it more difficult, or has delayed our ability, to timely obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the product candidates needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to future delays in these trials.

We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or its impact on our business. Despite the availability of vaccines and improved treatment options, we may continue to see widespread effects from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of resurgences of cases, particularly with recently emerged or future variants that are resistant to the vaccines and treatment alternatives. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and our results of operation and financial condition.

We will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of January 31, 2022, we had 269 full-time employees. As our research, development, manufacturing and commercialization plans and strategies develop over time, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

​

​

​

​

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

​

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including many aspects of regulatory affairs, clinical management and manufacturing. There can be no assurance that the services of these organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

​

76

Table of Contents

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

​

If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to identify and develop new or next generation product candidates will be impaired, could result in loss of markets or market share and could make us less competitive.

​

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including David R. Epstein, our Chairman, Pablo J. Cagnoni, our Chief Executive Officer, Jose Carmona, our Chief Financial Officer, Laurence Turka, our Chief Scientific Officer and Head of Research & Translational Medicine, Dannielle Appelhans, our Chief Operating Officer, and Spencer Fisk, our Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Operations Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

​

We conduct our operations at our facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Smithfield, Rhode Island. The New England region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.

​

To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided restricted stock units and stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Employment of our key employees is at-will, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers, as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

​

Our internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs, any future CMOs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, and our intellectual property is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

​

Our intellectual property, other proprietary technology, and other sensitive company information is dependent on sophisticated information technology systems and is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack, loss, damage, destruction from system malfunction, computer viruses, loss of data privacy, or misappropriation or misuse of it by those with permitted access, and other events. While we have invested to protect our intellectual property and other information, and continue to upgrade and enhance our systems to keep pace with continuing changes in information processing technology, there can be no assurance that our precautionary measures will prevent breakdowns, breaches, cyber-attacks, or other events. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial condition, or results of operations.

​

Further, despite the implementation of security measures, the internal computer systems of our CROs, any future CMOs and other contractors and consultants are likewise subject to such vulnerabilities. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date (and while we are not aware of such a failure or breach at any of such third parties), if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our or their development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we currently rely on outside vendors to supply raw materials and other important components, such as CD34+ precursor cells and lentiviral vectors, that are used to manufacture our

77

Table of Contents

product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

​

Risks related to litigation and noncompliance with applicable laws or regulations

​

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

​

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of testing our product candidates in clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaborators. If and when coverage is secured, our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

78

Table of Contents

​

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

​

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct, including failure to comply with the laws of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, failure to provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, failure to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, failure to comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws, and failure to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under applicable law will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs.

​

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

​

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission practices, certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. See the sections entitled, “Business — Government Regulation — Other healthcare laws.”

​

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Additionally, 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.

​

Ensuring that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations can be time- and resource-consuming, can divert our attention from our business and have involved, and will continue to involve, substantial costs. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct 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 be in compliance with such laws or regulations. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any enforcement actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, as well as

79

Table of Contents

additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of 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, manufacturers or other providers or entities with whom we do business is found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products due to noncompliance with applicable laws could materially affect business in an adverse way. If any of the above occur, our ability to operate our business and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

​

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

​

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensing partners, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement. In addition, our patents or the patents of our licensing partners also may become involved in inventorship, priority or validity disputes. To counter or defend against such claims can be expensive and time-consuming. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or in-licensed by us is invalid or unenforceable or 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), or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned and in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. 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 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 this type of litigation.

​

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our 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 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 conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. 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.

​

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

​

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our research and development activities involve the use of biological and hazardous materials and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials, which could cause an interruption of our research and development efforts, business operations and any future commercialization efforts or environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures we have implemented for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case. In the event of accidental contamination or injury from hazardous materials, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore,

80

Table of Contents

environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of any changes in, and cannot be certain of our future compliance with, such laws and regulations. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

​

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage or workers compensation, property and casualty or general liability insurance policies that include coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

​

We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

​

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which we collectively refer to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies and government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase in time. We currently engage, and plan to continue to engage, third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities.

​

Risks related to government regulation

​

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

​

We intend to submit marketing applications in both the U.S. and in selected foreign jurisdictions. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries.

​

Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

​

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals,

81

Table of Contents

our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

​

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

​

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our current product candidates or any product candidates we may develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. We, as a company, have no experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and have had to, and expect to continue to have to, rely on third-party CROs and/or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities and clinical sites by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

​

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, if approval is obtained at all, is expensive, may take many years, particularly if additional clinical trials are required, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted IND, Premarket Approval, or PMA, BLA or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

82

Table of Contents

​

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. As a result, our ability to develop product candidates and obtain regulatory approval may be significantly impacted.

For example, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is for sponsors to seek licensure or approval based on dispositive data from well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant product candidate in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We believe that we may be able to utilize the FDA’s accelerated approval program for our product candidates given the limited alternatives for treatments for certain cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the FDA may not agree with our plans.

The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop based on the completed clinical trials. Additionally, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the conduct of Advisory Committee meetings may be disrupted or delayed and the impact that may have on the overall timing of regulatory approvals is uncertain.

Moreover, regulatory agencies may require the development and approval of genetic or biomarker diagnostic tests in order to advance some of our product candidates to clinical trials or potential commercialization. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for such product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

​

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

​

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

​

Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation or Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

​

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy 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 therapies 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. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates

83

Table of Contents

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 may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

​

We may seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation; we cannot assure our stockholders that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

We may seek Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation for one or more of our product candidates. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to expedite review of any drug that meets the following criteria: it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like Breakthrough Therapy Designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation for any of our product candidates. RMAT designation does not change the FDA’s standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

We may seek priority review designation for one or more of our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

​

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily result in expedited development or regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all.

​

​

​

84

Table of Contents

Our product candidates may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved 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 approved. 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 the 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. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational medicines to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

​

We may fail to obtain and maintain orphan drug designations from the FDA for our current and future product candidates, as applicable.

​

Our strategy includes filing for orphan drug designation for our product candidates, where available. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as one occurring in a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or biologic will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives, such as opportunities for grant funding toward clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full new drug application, or NDA, or BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the original manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

​

On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s preexisting regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The law reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Moreover, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress did not further change this interpretation when it clarified that the interpretation codified in FDARA would apply in cases where the FDA issued an orphan designation before the enactment of FDARA but where product approval came after the enactment of FDARA. The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

​

In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was

85

Table of Contents

materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the orphan-designated disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may receive and be approved for the same condition, and only the first applicant to receive approval will receive the benefits of marketing exclusivity. Even after an orphan-designated product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior if it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, while we may seek orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

​

Even if we receive regulatory approval of any product candidates or therapies, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

​

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, export, import, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

​

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. As such, we and any contract manufacturers we may engage will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

​

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may 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 testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, 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. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

​

The FDA may impose consent decrees or 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 our product candidates, 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 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 restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

​

​

​

86

Table of Contents

​

​

​

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications 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 of an approved product, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability and regulatory enforcement actions.

​

The policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities 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 also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the current administration in the United States may impact our business and industry. Namely, the current administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of executive orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities, such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions, including any executive orders, will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

​

Healthcare insurance coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, if approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell any product candidates or therapies profitably.

​

The success of our product candidates, if approved, depends on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of the diseases they target, we cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for, or accurately estimate the potential revenue from, our product candidates or assure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we may develop. See the sections entitled, “Business — Government Regulation — Coverage and Reimbursement.”

​

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance.

​

Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. 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:

​

​

​

87

Table of Contents

​

​

​

In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, or CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. That being said, however, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. As a result, 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. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high, which may adversely impact physicians’ willingness to prescribe and treat. Further, even if one payor provides coverage for a given product, other payors may not provide coverage for that product. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of product candidates. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow-up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

​

Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required that CMS reduce the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule by 2% in 2013, which served as a base for 2014 and subsequent years. In addition, effective January 1, 2014, CMS also began bundling the Medicare payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient setting. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures are expected to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for certain pharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures.

​

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and other third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

​

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, if approved, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes. We may face competition in the United States for our development candidates and investigational medicines, if

88

Table of Contents

approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In the United States, the FDA issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, or NDC, for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. The market implications of the final guidance are unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

​

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies 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 business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

​

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency 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 may also slow the time necessary for new drugs or biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including most recently from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

Since March 2020, when foreign and domestic inspections of facilities were largely placed on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis. The FDA has developed a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. As of May 2021, certain inspections, such as foreign preapproval, surveillance, and for-cause inspections that are not deemed mission-critical, remain temporarily postponed. In April 2021, the FDA issued guidance for industry formally announcing plans to employ remote interactive evaluations, using risk management methods, to meet user fee commitments and goal dates and in May 2021 announced plans to continue progress toward resuming standard operational levels. Should the FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, the FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. In 2020 and 2021, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities.

​

European Union drug marketing and reimbursement regulations may materially affect our ability to market and receive coverage for our products in the European Member States.

​

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly certain countries in the European Union, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which

89

Table of Contents

could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

​

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

​

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

​

In addition, in some foreign countries, including the European Economic Area, or the EEA, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various European Union Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. Other European Union Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Instead of approving a specific price for a medicinal product, a Member State may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

​

Data collection in Europe and some U.S. states is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information.

​

Regulators globally are imposing greater restrictions relating to data privacy and implementing restrictive regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of personal data, such as healthcare data or other sensitive information. For example, in 2016, the European Union, adopted a new regulation governing data practices and privacy called the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to any company that collects and uses personal data in connection with offering goods or services to individuals in the

90

Table of Contents

European Union or the monitoring of such individuals’ behavior and governs the collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, in the European Union.

​

The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, such as including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, implementing safeguards to keep personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, reporting security and privacy breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States. It substantially increases the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10 million Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. The GDPR also 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 GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers.

​

In addition, further to the United Kingdom's, or the UK’s, exit from the European Union on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the European Union’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The UK is now regarded as a third country under the GDPR but the European Commission has adopted a decision on June 28, 2021 recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the GDPR for a four-year period (until June 27, 2025). Similarly, the UK has determined that it considers all of the E.U. and EEA Member States to be adequate for the purposes of data protection. This ensures that data flows between the UK and the E.U. and EEA remain unaffected.

​

If we begin conducting trials in the EEA or the UK, we must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK, in particular to the United States in compliance with European data protection laws including the GDPR and UK GDPR. The GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA. For example, in July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the E.U.-US Privacy Shield and imposing further restrictions on use of the standard contractual clauses, which could increase our costs and our ability to efficiently process personal data from the EEA. The UK has adopted similar restrictions. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European, UK or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR and UK GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Further, the GDPR and UK GDPR and other laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of personal data could greatly increase the cost of providing our product candidates, if approved, or even prevent us from offering our product candidates, if approved, in certain jurisdictions. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

​

91

Table of Contents

Laws and regulations governing any international operations we may have in the future may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain products outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

​

If we expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

​

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

​

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

​

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

​

Ongoing healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

​

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. See the section entitled, “Business — Government Regulation — Current and future healthcare reform legislation.”

​

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to commercialize any products successfully, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. 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, or the ACA, was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

​

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state

92

Table of Contents

legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

​

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

​

Risks related to our intellectual property

​

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for any product candidates we develop or for our RED PLATFORM, our competitors could develop and commercialize products or technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, and our technology may be adversely affected.

​

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates, RED PLATFORM and other technologies we may develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property and filing patent applications in the United States and abroad relating to our product candidates and RED PLATFORM, as well as other technologies that are important to our business. Given that the development of our technology and product candidates is at an early stage, our intellectual property portfolio with respect to certain aspects of our technology and product candidates is also at an early stage. For example, although we own issued patents related to RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, there can be no assurance that we will secure issued patents for additional product candidates. We have filed or intend to file patent applications directed to the composition of matter of our product candidates and various processes of our RED PLATFORM; however, there can be no assurance that any such patent applications will issue as granted patents. Furthermore, in some cases, we have only filed provisional patent applications on certain aspects of our technology and product candidates and each of these provisional patent applications is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the inventions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications.

​

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. Although we have secured issued United States composition of matter patents related to RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224, we cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering the composition of matter of all of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the 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. Furthermore, in some cases, we may not be able to obtain issued claims covering compositions of matter relating to our product candidates and RED PLATFORM, as well as other technologies that are important to our business, and instead may need to rely on filing patent applications with claims covering a method of use and/or method of manufacture. 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 products for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label” for those uses that are covered by our method of use patents. 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. There can be no assurance that any such patent applications will issue as granted patents, and even if they do issue, such patent claims may be insufficient to prevent third parties, such as our competitors, from utilizing our technology. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates and RED PLATFORM could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

​

93

Table of Contents

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unsolved. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patents applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability, or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

​

We intend to rely on patent and other rights and the status of our product candidates, if approved, as products eligible for exclusivity under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). If we are unable to obtain or maintain exclusivity from the combination of these approaches, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

​

We rely or will rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements and regulatory exclusivity to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our and our licensors’ ability to maintain patent and other intellectual property protection and obtain regulatory exclusivity in the United States and in other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products.

​

Even if we cannot obtain and maintain effective protection of exclusivity from our intellectual property rights and regulatory efforts, including patent protection, data exclusivity or orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates, we believe that our product candidates could be protected by exclusivity that prevents approval of a biosimilar in the United States for a period of twelve years from the time the product to which it claims similarity was first approved. However, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, Title VII, Subtitle A of the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L.No.111-148, 124 Stat.119, Sections 7001-02 signed into law March 23, 2010, and codified in 42 U.S.C. §262 (the BCPIA), created an elaborate and complex patent dispute resolution mechanism for biosimilars that could prevent us from launching our product candidates in the United States or could substantially delay such launches. Current biosimilars litigation are addressing certain requirements of the BPCIA which is creating uncertainty over how certain terms of the BPCIA should be construed and this presents uncertainty for both the biologics innovator and biosimilar party. The BPCIA mechanism required for biosimilar applicants may pose greater risk that patent infringement litigation will disrupt our activities and add increased expenses, as well as divert management’s attention. If a biosimilar version of one of our product candidates were approved in the United States, it could have a negative effect on our business.

​

If any of our owned or in-licensed patent applications do not issue as patents in any jurisdiction, we may not be able to compete effectively.

​

With respect to our patent portfolio, as of December 31, 2021, most of the patent rights that we own or in-license are currently pending patent applications, except that we own 14 issued U.S. patents and we have two in-licensed U.S. patents. With respect to both in-licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or other third parties.

​

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patents and patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a

94

Table of Contents

patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

​

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates would be adversely affected.

​

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our owned or in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technology, or other technologies or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

​

No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the biotechnology field has emerged in the United States. The patent situation outside of the United States is even more uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned or licensed patents. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe our intellectual property will depend in part on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions and improvements. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our products, the use of our products, and the methods used to manufacture those products. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our products. The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our patented product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology. Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our product candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies. For these reasons, we may have competition for our product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

​

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

​

95

Table of Contents

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and patents that we own or license may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. We or our licensors may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or to foreign patent authorities or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our owned or licensed patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies or other technologies and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates, RED PLATFORM and other technologies. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

​

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

​

We may, in the future, co-own patent rights relating to future product candidates and our RED PLATFORM with third parties. Some of our in-licensed patent rights are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. In addition, our licensors may co-own the patent rights we in-license with other third parties with whom we do not have a direct relationship. Our exclusive rights to certain of these patent rights are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between the joint owners of such patent rights, who are not parties to our license agreements. For example, under our license agreement with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, or WIBR, as amended (or the WIBR License) we license certain patents rights co-owned by WIBR and Tufts University, or Tufts. Our rights to Tufts’ interest in such patent rights depends on an inter-institutional agreement between WIBR and Tufts, pursuant to which WIBR controls the licensing of such patent rights. If our licensors do not have exclusive control of the grant of licenses under any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent rights or we are otherwise unable to secure such exclusive rights, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patent rights in order to enforce such patent rights against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

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

​

We rely upon licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our product candidates and RED PLATFORM. For example, under the WIBR License, WIBR grants us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under four patent families to research, develop, make, and commercialize products and processes covered by such patent rights for all uses. The portfolio of patent rights licensed to us under the WIBR License is directed, in part, to the in vitro production of red blood cells, including the use of the enzyme sortase to conjugate a protein of interest to the cell surface. Patent rights that we in-license may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, our in-licensed patent rights from WIBR under the WIBR License were funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to such intellectual property. Furthermore, pursuant to a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Agreement between WIBR and a global biopharmaceutical company, the biopharmaceutical company funded research resulting in one of the patent families licensed to us under the WIBR License and retained a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use the inventions and technologies covered by this patent family for research and development purposes.

96

Table of Contents

WIBR also retains the right with respect to all four patent families licensed to us to (i) to practice the patent rights licensed under the agreement for research, teaching and educational purposes, including sponsored research and collaboration, and (ii) to grant non-exclusive licenses to academic and not-for-profit research institutes to practice under the patent rights for research, teaching and educational purposes (excluding sponsored research), while Tufts retains such rights only with respect to the patent family that it co-owns.

​

In addition, subject to the terms of any such license agreements, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance, and we may not have the right to control the enforcement, and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. For example, under the WIBR License, WIBR controls prosecution of the patent rights licensed to us, and we control enforcement of the patent rights. We cannot be certain that our in-licensed patent applications (and any patents issuing therefrom) that are controlled by our licensors will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend such patents rights, or lose rights to those patent applications (or any patents issuing therefrom), the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates and RED PLATFORM technologies that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected, and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. Moreover, we cannot be certain that such activities by our licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution. Finally, subject to the terms of any such license agreements, the licensor may be able to terminate the license without our consent. For example, under the WIBR License, WIBR may terminate the WIBR License upon written notice to us if we, along with our affiliates and sublicensees, cease to carry on business related to the WIBR License for more than six months. WIBR may also terminate the WIBR License for our material breach that remains uncured for sixty days after receiving notice thereof, if we fail to pay amounts due under the agreement within thirty days after receiving notice of such failure, or if we challenge the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patent rights.

​

Some intellectual property may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

​

Our in-licensed patent rights from WIBR under the WIBR License were funded in part by the U.S. government and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including rights to disclose the funded inventions and technology to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology we have licensed that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States in certain circumstances and if this requirement is not waived. Any exercise by the U.S. government of such rights or by any third party of its reserved rights could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

​

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

​

The WIBR License imposes, and we expect our future license agreements will impose, various development, diligence, commercialization, and other obligations on us in order to maintain the licenses. In spite of our efforts, WIBR or a future licensor might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and seek to

97

Table of Contents

terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patent rights licensed thereunder fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates or of our current RED PLATFORM technologies. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to continue to utilize our RED PLATFORM or successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

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

​

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

​

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts

98

Table of Contents

and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

​

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

​

Our inability to protect our intellectual property or failure to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of data or other sensitive company information could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

Our success and competitive position are dependent in part upon our proprietary intellectual property. We rely on a combination of patents and trade secrets to protect our proprietary intellectual property, and we expect to continue to do so. Although we seek to protect our proprietary rights through a variety of means, we cannot guarantee that the protective steps we have taken are adequate to protect these rights. Patents issued to or licensed by us in the past or in the future may be challenged and held invalid. In addition, as our patents expire, we may be unsuccessful in extending their protection through patent term extensions. The expiration of, or the failure to maintain or extend our patents, could have a material adverse effect on us.

​

We also rely on confidentiality agreements with certain employees, consultants, and other third parties to protect, in part, trade secrets and other proprietary information. These agreements could be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for such a breach. In addition, others could independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information or gain access to our trade secrets or proprietary information.

​

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

​

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other government fees on patents and applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned or licensed patents and applications. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees due to U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In some cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

​

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

​

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to

99

Table of Contents

the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent 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 us, 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. 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, RED PLATFORM or other technologies or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

​

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. 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. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO 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. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed 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. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

​

Issued patents covering our product candidates, and any patents that may issue covering our RED PLATFORM technologies and other technologies, could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad.

​

If we or one of our licensors initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies or other technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. 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 or non-enablement. 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. Third parties may raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of our owned or in-licensed patents before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies, or other technologies. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensing partners and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product

100

Table of Contents

candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

​

If we do not obtain patent term extension and/or data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

​

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our owned or in-licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during 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, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar extensions as compensation for patent term lost during regulatory review processes are also available in certain foreign countries and territories, such as in Europe under a Supplementary Protection Certificate. However, we may not be granted an extension in the United States and/or foreign countries and territories because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is shorter than what we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

​

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

​

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patent rights, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patent rights, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates, RED PLATFORM and other technologies. 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. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

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 our product candidates, RED PLATFORM and other technologies, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology, and other proprietary information and to maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We expect our trade secrets and know-how to over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology, and the movement of personnel from academic to industry scientific positions.

​

We currently, and may continue in the future continue to, rely on third parties to assist us in developing and manufacturing our product candidates. Accordingly, we must, at times, share know-how and trade secrets, including those related to our RED PLATFORM, with them. We may in the future also enter into research and development collaborations with third parties that may require us to share know-how and trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. We seek to protect our know-how, trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and including in our vendor and service agreements terms protecting our confidential information, know-how and trade secrets, with parties who have access to such information, such as our employees, scientific collaborators, contract research organizations,

101

Table of Contents

contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, as well as train our employees not to bring or use proprietary information or technology from former employers to us or in their work, and we remind former employees when they leave their employment of their confidentiality obligations. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

​

Despite our efforts, any of the aforementioned parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, or there may be a lapses or failures in our physical and electronic security systems which lead to our proprietary information being disclosed, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies in the event of any such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of our scientific advisors, employees, contractors and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result. Moreover, if confidential information that is licensed or disclosed to us by our partners, collaborators, or others is inadvertently disclosed or subject to a breach or violation, we may be exposed to liability to the owner of that confidential information. 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 materially and adversely harmed.

​

We may not be successful in obtaining, through acquisitions, in-licenses or otherwise, necessary rights to our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies or other technologies.

​

We currently have rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to develop our product candidates and RED PLATFORM technologies. Some pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions are competing with us in the field of cellular therapeutics and red blood cell technologies and may have patents and have filed and are likely filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business. In order to avoid infringing these third-party patents, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses to such patents from such third-party intellectual property holders. We may also require licenses from third parties for certain technologies that we are evaluating for use with our current or future product candidates. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our current or future product candidates and our RED PLATFORM at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. 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 that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all.

​

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates or continue to utilize our existing RED PLATFORM technology, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

102

Table of Contents

​

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

​

Many of our employees, consultants, and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our licensors, competitors and 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 these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. 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. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

​

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.

​

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates, RED PLATFORM and other technologies.

​

The field of cellular therapeutics is competitive and dynamic. Due to the focused research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field, the intellectual property landscape is in flux, and it may remain uncertain in the future. As such, there may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

​

Our commercial success depends in part on our, our licensors’ and our collaborators’ ability to avoid infringing, misappropriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of complex litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. As discussed above, recently, due to changes in U.S. law referred to as patent reform, new procedures including inter partes review and post-grant review have been implemented. As stated above, this reform adds uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our patents in the future.

​

Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist relating to red blood cell technologies and therapeutic proteins, and in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies and other technologies may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot assure you that our product candidates, RED PLATFORM technologies and other technologies that we have developed, are developing or may develop in the future will not infringe existing or future patents owned by third parties. 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, RED PLATFORM and other technologies might assert are infringed by our current or future product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies, including claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover our product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies.

​

103

Table of Contents

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, RED PLATFORM or other technologies, could be found to be infringed by our product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies. 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, RED PLATFORM or other technologies may infringe. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including our RED PLATFORM technologies, manufacturing methods, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

​

Third parties may have patents or obtain patents in the future and claim that the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies infringes upon these patents. We are aware of an issued patent outside the United States that is directed to erythrocytes that comprise exogeneous polypeptides. While we believe that we have reasonable defenses against a claim of infringement should such a claim be brought, including that certain claims in this patent are invalid, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in any such action by the holder of the patent. In the event that any third party claims that we infringe their patents or that we are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and initiates litigation against us, even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that such patents are valid, enforceable and infringed by our product candidates, RED PLATFORM or other technologies. In this case, the holders of such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the applicable product candidate or technology unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates, RED PLATFORM, or other technologies, or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

​

Defense of infringement claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business, and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be enjoined from further developing or commercializing our infringing product candidates, RED PLATFORM, or other technologies. In addition, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties and/or redesign our infringing product candidates or technologies, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, RED PLATFORM, or other technologies, which could harm our business significantly.

​

Engaging in litigation to defend against third parties alleging that we have infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated their patents or other intellectual property rights is very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings against us could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

​

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 registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. 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. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a

104

Table of Contents

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. 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. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

​

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:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

105

Table of Contents

Risks related to our reliance on third parties

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of, or commercialize, any potential product candidates.

​

We depend, and will continue to depend, upon third parties, including independent investigators, to conduct our clinical trials under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic partners and others. We have had to, and expect to continue to have to, negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and trial sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

​

We have relied, and expect to continue to rely, heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, will have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients.

​

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

​

Any third parties conducting our current or future clinical trials are not, and will not be, our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing or future clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

​

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that any such delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

​

106

Table of Contents

We may rely on third parties to conduct investigator-sponsored clinical trials of our product candidates. Any failure by a third party to meet its obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for other product candidates.

​

We may rely on academic and private non-academic institutions to conduct and sponsor clinical trials relating to our product candidates. We will not control the design or conduct of the investigator-sponsored trials, and it is possible that the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities will not view these investigator-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future clinical trials, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results.

​

Such arrangements will likely provide us certain information rights with respect to the investigator-sponsored trials, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory filings, resulting from the investigator-sponsored trials. However, we would not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from investigator-sponsored trials, nor would we own the data from the investigator-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the investigator-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development of our product candidates. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data proves to be inadequate compared to the first-hand knowledge we might have gained had the investigator-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected.

​

Additionally, the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with the sufficiency of our right of reference to the preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data generated by these investigator-sponsored trials, or our interpretation of preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data from these investigator-sponsored trials. If so, the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional preclinical, manufacturing, or clinical data before we may initiate our planned trials and/or may not accept such additional data as adequate to initiate our planned trials.

​

We may rely on third parties to produce and process our products, if approved.

​

We currently rely on outside vendors to supply raw materials and other important components, such as CD34+ precursor cells and lentiviral vectors, that are used to manufacture our product candidates. We have only recently begun clinical scale manufacturing and have not reached commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We may not be able to manufacture sufficient materials to meet clinical demand for all of our product candidates and may not reach commercial scale for any of our product candidates. We will make changes as we work to optimize the manufacturing process for our product candidates, and we cannot be sure that even minor changes in the process will result in therapies that are safe and effective.

​

The facilities used to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or other foreign regulatory agencies pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to the FDA or other foreign regulatory agencies. As of January 2020, our manufacturing facility purchased in 2018 is operational and we are and will continue to be responsible for compliance with regulatory requirements, known as cGMP requirements, and the clinical supply of our product candidates is also subject to compliance with cGMP requirements. If we or any contract manufacturers that we may engage cannot successfully manufacture in conformance with our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we and they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities with respect to the manufacture of our product candidates. In addition, we have no control over the ability of any contract manufacturers that we may engage to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel and such third parties may experience business interruptions. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

​

For more information, see “Risk factors—Risks related to manufacturing and supply” below.

​

107

Table of Contents

Cell therapies rely on the availability of specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

​

Our product candidates require certain specialty raw materials, some of which we obtain from small companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product. In addition, those suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We do not currently have contracts in place with all of the suppliers that we may need at any point in time, and if needed, may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

​

We are dependent on suppliers for some of our components, precursor cells and materials used to manufacture our product candidates.

​

We currently depend on suppliers for some of the components and precursor cells necessary for our product candidates and our suppliers of precursor cells depend on the availability of human donors. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business, that they will be able to identify and recruit adequate numbers of donors, that they will be able to meet our supply needs, that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose or whether they will otherwise be affected by factors outside of their control. Additionally, we rely on sole suppliers for certain of our supplies. If these sole suppliers are unable to supply to us in the quantities we require, or at all, or otherwise default on their supply obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain alternative supplies from other suppliers on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all.

​

There are, in general, relatively few alternative sources of supply for these components and precursor cells. These suppliers may be unable or unwilling to meet our future demands for our clinical trials or commercial sale. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components and precursor cells could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet regulatory requirements. Any disruption in supply from a supplier or manufacturing location could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

If we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the components, precursor cells and other materials used to manufacture our products, any interruption or delay in the supply of components, precursor cells or other materials, or our inability to obtain components, precursor cells or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet clinical and commercial demand.

​

In addition, as part of the FDA’s approval of our product candidates, we will also require FDA approval of the individual components of our process, which include the manufacturing processes and facilities of our suppliers.

​

Our reliance on these suppliers subjects us to a number of risks that could harm our business, and financial condition, including, among other things:

​

​

​

108

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

If any of these risks materialize, our manufacturing costs could significantly increase and our ability to meet clinical and commercial demand for our products could be impacted.

​

Our future collaborations may be important to our business. If we are unable to maintain any of these collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

​

We have limited capabilities for product development and do not yet have any capability for sales, marketing or distribution. Accordingly, we may enter into collaborations with other companies to provide us with important technologies and funding for our programs and technology, and we may receive additional technologies and funding under these and other collaborations in the future. Any future collaborations we enter into, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

109

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

If our potential future collaborations do not result in the successful discovery, development and commercialization of products or if one of our future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our technology and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K also apply to the activities of our future therapeutic collaborators.

​

Additionally, if one of our potential future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

​

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations or do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates, bring them to market and generate revenue from sales of drugs or continue to develop our technology, and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

​

110

Table of Contents

Risks related to manufacturing and supply

​

Our product candidates are uniquely manufactured. If we or any third-party manufacturers that we may engage encounter difficulties in manufacturing our product candidates or any of their components, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.

​

The manufacturing process used to produce our product candidates is complex and novel and it has not previously been used to manufacture products for clinical testing or commercialization. As a result of these complexities, the cost to manufacture our product candidates is higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds and monoclonal antibodies and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult to reproduce. Furthermore, our manufacturing process development and scale-up is at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates.

​

Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to logistical issues associated with the collection of hematopoietic precursor cells from donors, procurement of plasmids and lentiviral vectors sourced from various suppliers and shipment to the RCT product candidate manufacturing site, as well as shipment of the final product to clinical centers, manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment or reagent failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in cell growth, and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes, or changes to these processes, could result in reduced production yields, lot failures, product defects, product recalls, product liability claims and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in our manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, production at such manufacturing facilities may be interrupted for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials toward approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes can trigger regulatory review or delays and, regardless of regulatory feedback, will carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of ongoing clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

​

Although we continue to optimize our manufacturing process for our RCT product candidates, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents and/or raw materials. We ultimately may not be successful in operating the manufacturing facility we established ourselves, or any contract manufacturer that we may engage with may not have the necessary capabilities to successfully implement our manufacturing process. If we are unable to adequately validate or scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates as planned, we will need to transfer to an alternative contract manufacturer and complete the manufacturing validation process, which can be costly, lengthy and unpredictable. If we are able to adequately validate and scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with a contract manufacturer that we may engage, we may still need to negotiate with such contract manufacturer an agreement for commercial supply and it is not certain we will be able to come to agreement on terms acceptable to us. As a result, we may ultimately be unable to reduce the cost of goods for our product candidates to levels that will allow for an attractive return on investment if and when those product candidates are commercialized.

​

The manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to the FDA and foreign regulatory authority approval process, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA and foreign regulatory authority requirements on an ongoing basis. If we or our CMOs that we may engage are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such products. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs that we may engage will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more

111

Table of Contents

clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. We or CMOs we may engage may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our raw materials and product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in the inability to manufacture product or the loss of usable product or could prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. Our future success depends on our ability to manufacture our products on a timely basis with acceptable manufacturing costs, while at the same time maintaining good quality control and complying with applicable regulatory requirements, and an inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, we could incur higher manufacturing costs if manufacturing processes or standards change, and we could need to replace, modify, design, or build and install equipment, all of which would require additional capital expenditures. Specifically, because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater.

​

Fluctuations in a CMO’s demand from other customers may affect their ability or willingness to deliver materials or products in a timely manner or may lead to long-term capacity constraints at the supplier. Additionally, a CMO may lose access to critical services or sustain damage to a facility, including losses due to man-made or natural disasters, geo-political events, or epidemics that may result in a sustained interruption in the manufacture and supply of our products. Our CMOs may also encounter financial or other hardships unrelated to our demand for materials, products and services, which could inhibit their ability to fulfill our orders and meet our requirements. If any CMO with whom we contract fails to perform its obligations, we may be forced to enter into an agreement with a different CMO, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. Our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as a result. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a CMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such CMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CMO or require us to obtain a license from such CMO in order to have another CMO manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

​

We have acquired and are establishing our own manufacturing facility and infrastructure in addition to or in lieu of relying on CMOs for the manufacture of our product candidates, which is costly, time-consuming, and which may not be successful.

​

In July 2018, we purchased a 135,000 square foot manufacturing facility located in Smithfield, Rhode Island as an alternative, or in addition, to our reliance on CMOs for the manufacture of our product candidates. As of January 2020, this manufacturing facility is operational and is expected to provide cGMP materials for clinical supply and, ultimately, commercial product upon regulatory approval. We are currently providing cGMP supply for our ongoing RTX-240, RTX-321 and RTX-224 cancer clinical trials from this site.

​

We expect that our own manufacturing facility will provide us with enhanced control of material supply for both clinical trials and commercial product, enable more rapid implementation of process changes, and allow for better long-term cost of goods manufactured. However, we do not have extensive experience as a company in setting up, building, managing or operating a manufacturing facility and may never be successful in developing or operating this facility and recognizing its full capabilities. As a result, we may need to hire additional personnel to manage our operations and facilities and develop the necessary infrastructure to continue the research and development, and eventual

112

Table of Contents

commercialization, if approved, of our product candidates. Additionally, if we have failed to select the correct location for our facility, or if we fail to complete any future renovations in an efficient manner, or fail to generally manage our growth effectively, the development and production of our product candidates could be curtailed or delayed, or could require changes in the manufacturing process which could trigger the requirement to conduct bridging studies. We may establish multiple manufacturing facilities as we expand our commercial footprint to multiple geographies, which may lead to regulatory delays or prove costly. Even if we are successful, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected by cost-overruns, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, man-made or natural disasters, utility failures or other business interruptions and numerous other factors (many of which we are predominantly self-insured for) that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy and have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

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

​

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

​

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less desirable collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs and capital.

​

We have limited experience as a company managing a manufacturing facility.

​

Operating our own manufacturing facility will require significant resources, and we have limited experience as a company in managing a manufacturing facility, having done so only since January 2020, when our Smithfield, RI facility became operational. In part because of this limited experience, we cannot be certain that our manufacturing plans will be completed on time, if at all, or if manufacturing of product candidates from our own manufacturing facility for our ongoing or future clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all. In part because of our inexperience, we may have unacceptable or inconsistent product quality success rates and yields, and we may be unable to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. Failure to successfully operate our manufacturing facility could adversely affect the approvability and commercial viability of our product candidates.

​

Risks related to our common stock

​

The price of our stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and our stockholders could lose all or part of their investment.

​

The trading price of our common stock has been highly volatile and could continue to be subject to large fluctuations in response to the risk factors discussed in this section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other risk factors beyond our control, including:

​

​

​

113

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

114

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

In recent years, the stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Since our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on July 18, 2018, our stock price has traded at prices as low as $3.35 per share and as high as $38.71 per share through January 31, 2022.

​

Additionally, technical factors in the public trading market for our stock may produce price movements that may or may not comport with macro, industry or company-specific fundamentals, including, without limitation, the sentiment of retail investors (including as may be expressed on financial trading and other social media sites), speculation in the press, in the investment community, or on the internet, including on online forums and social media, about us, our industry or our securities, the amount and status of short interest in our securities (including a “short squeeze”), access to margin debt, trading in options and other derivatives on our common stock and other technical trading factors. We may incur rapid and substantial decreases in our stock price in the foreseeable future that are unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. There can be no guarantee that our stock price will remain at current prices or that future sales of our common stock will not be at prices lower than the sales price in previous offerings. If the market price of our common stock does not exceed their purchase price, our stockholders may not realize any return on their investment in us and may lose some or all of their investment. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

​

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

​

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, under the Loan Agreement, we are restricted from paying any dividends or making any distributions on account of our capital stock. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited in the foreseeable future to the appreciation of their stock.

​

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

​

Our executive officers, directors and their affiliates beneficially hold, in the aggregate, over 48% of our outstanding voting stock. These stockholders will have the ability to influence us through this ownership position. These stockholders may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that our stockholders may feel are in their best interest as one of our stockholders.

​

We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

​

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which

115

Table of Contents

require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and The Nasdaq Market to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas, such as “say on pay” and proxy access.

​

As of December 31, 2021, we became a large accelerated filer and no longer qualify as an emerging growth company under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act. Accordingly, we have ceased to be eligible for the emerging growth company provisions of the JOBS Act as of such date and are no longer able to avail ourselves of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to non-emerging growth companies. Such requirements include the requirement to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enhanced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and the requirement to hold nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. Additionally, we will no longer have the option to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. As a result, we may incur additional expenses or challenges relating to our transition to a large accelerated filer and/or our loss of emerging growth company status. Further, stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

​

The rules and regulations applicable to public companies substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. If these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

​

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

​

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price may decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

​

We have broad discretion in the use of our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments and may not use them effectively.

​

Our management has broad discretion in the application of our cash, cash equivalents and investments. Because of the number and variability of factors that will determine our use of our cash, cash equivalents and investments, their ultimate use may vary substantially from their currently intended use. Our management might not apply our cash, cash equivalents and investments in ways that ultimately increase the value of our stockholders’ investment. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could harm our business. Pending their use, we may invest our cash in short-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities. These investments may not yield a favorable return to our

116

Table of Contents

stockholders. If we do not use our resources in ways that enhance stockholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause our stock price to decline.

​

Risks related to corporate governance

​

Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

​

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for our stockholders and other stockholders to elect directors of their choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions they desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

​

Our amended and restated bylaws designate specific courts as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

​

Pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claim for (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, or other employees to us or our stockholders; (3) any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law or our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; (4)

117

Table of Contents

any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; or (5) any action asserting a claim against us governed by the internal affairs doctrine, or the Delaware Forum Provision. The Delaware Forum Provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Our amended and restated bylaws further provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the sole and exclusive forum (1) for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and (2) of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, or the Federal Forum Provision, as our principal executive offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and Federal Forum Provision; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

​

We recognize that the Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, the forum selection clauses in our amended and restated by-laws may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage the filing of lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. While the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in March 2020 that federal forum selection provisions purporting to require claims under the Securities Act be brought in federal court are “facially valid” under Delaware law, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on us and/or our stockholders who assert that the provision is invalid or unenforceable, and if the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable, we may incur additional costs with resolving such matters. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.

​

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

Our corporate headquarters is located in approximately 85,000 square feet of office and laboratory space at 399 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lease term for approximately 48,000 square feet commenced on January 28, 2019 and the lease term for the remaining 37,000 square feet commenced on August 8, 2019. The lease terms will expire eight and nine years from the commencement date of the 48,000 square feet and the remaining 37,000 square feet, respectively.

In addition to our corporate headquarters, we own a 135,000 square foot manufacturing facility located in Smithfield, Rhode Island.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

​

118

Table of Contents

PART II

​

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

​

Certain Information Regarding the Trading of Our Common Stock

​

Our common stock trades under the symbol “RUBY” on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and has been publicly traded since July 18, 2018. Prior to this time, there was no public market for our common stock.

​

Holders of Our Common Stock

​

As of January 31, 2022, there were approximately 13 holders of record of shares of our common stock. This number does not include stockholders for whom shares are held in “nominee” or “street” name.

​

Dividends

​

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant.

​

Stock Performance Graph

​

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Exchange Act or Securities Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

​

The following graph compares the performance of our common stock to the Nasdaq Composite Index and to the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index from July 18, 2018 (the first date that shares of our common stock were publicly traded) through December 31, 2021. The comparison assumes $100 was invested in our common stock and in each of the foregoing indices after the market closed on July 18, 2018, and it assumes reinvestment of dividends, if any. The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

119

Table of Contents

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

​

Information about our equity compensation plans will be included in our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the SEC with respect to our 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference.

​

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

​

Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities

​

None.

​

Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offering

​

On July 20, 2018, we completed the IPO of our common stock pursuant to which we issued and sold 12,055,450 shares of our common stock at a price to the public of $23.00 per share.

​

The offer and sale of all of the shares of our common stock in our IPO were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-225840), which was declared effective by the SEC on July 17, 2018 and a registration statement on Form S-1MEF (File No. 333-226214), which was automatically effective upon filing with the SEC on July 17, 2018. Following the sale of all of the shares offered in connection with the closing of our IPO, the offering terminated. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Jefferies LLC and Leerink Partners LLC acted as joint book-running managers of our IPO.

​

We received aggregate gross proceeds from our IPO of $277.3 million, or aggregate net proceeds of $254.3 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs. None of the underwriting discounts and commissions or offering expenses were incurred or paid, directly or indirectly, to directors or officers of ours or their associates or to persons owning 10% or more of our common stock or to any of our affiliates.

​

As of December 31, 2021, we estimate that we have used 100% of the net proceeds from the IPO for operations, the purchase of our manufacturing facility and purchases of other property, plant, and equipment. There was no material change in our planned use of the net proceeds from the IPO as described in our final prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act with the SEC on July 18, 2018.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

​

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Item 6. Reserved

​

​

120

Table of Contents

​

​

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Objective

​

The purpose of the following discussion and analysis is to provide material information relevant to an assessment of our financial condition and results of operations from management’s perspective, including to describe and explain key trends, events and other factors that impacted our reported results and that are reasonably likely to impact our future performance.

​

As such, the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

​

Overview

​

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that is biologically engineering red blood cells or RBCs, to develop an entirely new class of cellular medicines called Red Cell Therapeutics, or RCTs, for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Based on our vision that human red blood cells are the foundation of the next significant innovation in medicine, we have developed a programmable and highly versatile platform, which we call the RED PLATFORM, to biologically engineer and culture allogeneic cellular therapies that enable multiple applications, or modalities. We believe that the advantage of the platform is that once a modality is validated, as we have demonstrated with our lead product candidate RTX-240 for the treatment of advanced cancers, we increase the likelihood that all the programs within that modality will work, underscoring the broad potential of the RED PLATFORM to help patients.

​

In 2021, we demonstrated strong execution across our pipeline of RCTs. During the year, we presented initial clinical data from our Phase 1 trial with RTX-240 in patients with relapsed refractory solid tumors, which we believe provides clinical validation for our RED platform. Over the course of the year, we advanced enrollment in all our Phase 1studies for RTX-240 in solid tumors and AML, as well as our second program, RTX-321 in patients with HPV 16-positive tumors. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we received IND clearance for our third oncology program, RTX-224, our second broad immune agonist. In January 2022, we began dosing patients in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-224 for the treatment of patients with certain relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial (bladder) carcinoma and triple-negative breast cancer.

​

At our Investor Day in December 2021, we shared preclinical proof of concept data, demonstrating tolerance induction and the potential for bystander suppression in two stringent type 1 diabetes preclinical models. These findings are potentially translatable beyond type 1 diabetes to multiple autoimmune diseases, including our priority target indications such as multiple sclerosis and celiac disease.

​

In 2021, we continued to advance our manufacturing capabilities and achieved significant manufacturing milestones, including increased cells produced per batch in 50L bioreactors by four times that of 2020 and providing uninterrupted clinical supply for three Phase 1 arms of the RTX-240 clinical trial and for the Phase 1 RTX-321 trial. We have the potential to significantly expand our manufacturing capabilities and plan to stage additional investments based on future needs and in preparation for potential pivotal trial and eventual commercialization.

​

Highlights of our clinical product candidates, RTX-240, RTX-321and RTX-224 are described further below.



​

121

Table of Contents

Broad Immune Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer

​

RTX-240

​

In March 2021, we announced initial clinical data from the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-240 in advanced solid tumors that we believe provides clinical validation of the RED PLATFORM’s potential ability to engineer red blood cells to mimic the human immune system and stimulate adaptive and innate immunity to generate clinical responses in cancer patients with refractory disease. RTX-240 is an allogeneic, off-the-shelf cellular therapy product candidate that is engineered to simultaneously present hundreds of thousands of copies of the costimulatory molecule 4-1BB ligand (4-1BBL) and IL-15TP (trans-presentation of IL-15 on IL-15Rα) in their native forms. RTX-240 is designed to broadly stimulate the immune system by activating and expanding both NK and CD8+ memory T cells to generate a potent anti-tumor response.

The data reported in March 2021 included initial safety (n=16) and efficacy (n=15) data from the RTX-240 Phase 1/2 clinical trial in relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. These data were also presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting in April 2021. Five dose cohorts were completed at the time of the data cutoff on February 28, 2021, and the data analysis was based on RECIST v1.1. criteria. We observed the following:

Further, preliminary data from the single agent solid tumor arm of our RTX-240 Phase 1 study that we reported in March 2021 showed early evidence of favorable immune-permissive changes in the tumor microenvironment, or TME, in three out of four patient biopsies, including increased expression of PD-L1 and/or increased ratio of M1/M2 macrophages after treatment with RTX-240, suggesting single-agent RTX-240 is able to induce changes in the TME that have been associated with response to checkpoint inhibition.

As a result of no dose-limiting toxicities, or DLTs, and a clear NK cell number dose response and other pharmacodynamic effects, we are continuing to dose escalate the single-agent RTX-240 solid tumor trial and expect to report clinical results for this trial, along with an integrated clinical development plan during the first quarter of 2022.

In March 2021, we presented preliminary trafficking data from the first acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, patient in the Phase 1 arm of the ongoing RTX-240 clinical trial for the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML, showing accumulation of activated, granzyme B-positive NK and T cells in the bone marrow, which is the site of disease in AML. We plan to report additional results from this arm of the ongoing RTX-240 clinical trial during the first quarter of 2022.

In June 2021, we began dosing patients in the arm of our RTX-240 clinical trial that is evaluating RTX-240 as a combination therapy with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors. We believe that RTX-240, with its mechanism of action as a broad immune agonist, may have synergy with

122

Table of Contents

immune checkpoint inhibition and could potentially overcome resistance to PD-1 inhibition. We expect to report initial clinical results from this arm of the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical of RTX-240 during the second half of 2022.

In July 2021, the paper entitled “Anti-Tumor Effects of RTX-240: An Engineered Red Blood Cell Expressing 4-1BB Ligand and Interleukin-15” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy. The publication highlights preclinical findings and demonstrates that, consistent with the data reported in March 2021, RTX-240 activates and expands CD8+ T cells and NK cells in vitro and in vivo generating potent anti-tumor activity in both a colorectal and melanoma model.

RTX-224

RTX-224 is an allogeneic cellular therapy that is engineered to express hundreds of thousands of copies of 4-1BBL and interleukin-12, or IL-12, on the cell surface. RTX-224 is designed as a broad immune agonist of both adaptive and innate responses, designed to activate CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, activate and expand NK cells, and promote antigen presentation. It is expected to produce a broad and potent anti-tumor T cell response and an innate immune response and have anti-tumor activity in those tumor types with known sensitivity to T cell killing, including tumor types with high mutational burden, PD-L1 expression and known responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors. The combination of IL-12 and 4-1BBL has the potential to broadly induce an immune response in patients with solid tumors and may serve as the bridge between the innate and adaptive immune systems.

In November 2021, we presented preclinical data for RTX-224 at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 36th Annual Meeting, showing that RTX-224 activated immune cells in the spleen and blood, leading to their trafficking into the tumor microenvironment to deliver an anti-tumor effect in our preclinical models.

The IND for RTX-224 was cleared in 2021, and, in January 2022, we began dosing patients in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-224 for the treatment of patients with certain relapsed/refractory or locally advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial (bladder) carcinoma and triple-negative breast cancer.

Antigen-Specific Immune Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer

RTX-321

RTX-321 is an allogeneic, off-the-shelf artificial antigen presenting cells, or aAPC, therapy product candidate that is engineered to induce a tumor-specific immune response by expanding antigen-specific T cells. RTX-321 expresses hundreds of thousands of copies of an HPV 16 peptide antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex class I proteins, the costimulatory molecule 4-1BBL and the cytokine IL-12 on the cell surface to mimic human T cell-APC interactions. In our Investigational New Drug, or IND, application filing, we included frozen drug substance for the first

123

Table of Contents

time as part of the manufacturing process, allowing for a truly off-the-shelf cellular therapy product candidate with a potential shelf life of several years.

In May 2021, a peer-reviewed manuscript about RTX-321 was published in Nature Communications, highlighting preclinical findings demonstrating that the surrogate model of RTX-321 induced a broad immune response, epitope spreading and memory formation in preclinical studies.

We began dosing patients in the Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-321 in April 2021. As of January 2022, there have been no DLTs observed and we are therefore continuing to dose escalate the trial. We expect to report initial results from the trial during the second half of 2022.

Antigen-Specific Immune Tolerance for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases

RTX-T1D (Type 1 Diabetes)

In December 2021, we shared preclinical proof of concept data, demonstrating tolerance induction and the potential for bystander suppression in two stringent type 1 diabetes preclinical models. Specifically, we established efficacy in the BDC2.5 adoptive transfer model with data showing that an RTX-T1D surrogate reversed established inflammation and induced two types of regulatory T cells, resulting in protection against re-challenge. Moreover, the data showed that repeated dosing could extend duration of disease protection to 5 months (the endpoint of the study). We also showed early efficacy in the non-obese diabetic mouse, or NOD, preclinical model. Results at 25 weeks showed that a mouse surrogate of RTX-T1D that delivered only two antigens delayed disease. As disease in NOD mice is caused by many autoantigens, these results demonstrate the potential for bystander suppression. These findings are potentially translatable beyond type 1 diabetes to multiple autoimmune diseases, including other Rubius’ high priority target indications such as multiple sclerosis and celiac disease.

We intend to present these results in a peer-reviewed setting and expect to provide details of our development timeline later in 2022.

Manufacturing

Using our RED PLATFORM, we are utilizing our universal engineering and manufacturing processes to advance a broad pipeline of RCT product candidates into clinical trials in cancer and autoimmune diseases. Common design and manufacturing elements of our RCTs should enable us to achieve significant advantages in product development.

To more efficiently develop new RCTs designed to treat different diseases, we have modified one of our initial manufacturing steps in which we add a gene or genes of interest that encode biotherapeutic proteins within the cell or on the cell surface. Using this approach, we have expressed more than 1,000 different therapeutic proteins since platform inception. This programmable process allows for the repeated generation of product candidates and enables us to leverage common CMC and toxicology data packages across our therapies.

Recognizing the importance of controlling our own manufacturing capabilities to produce consistent and reproducible product at greater scale, we acquired, renovated and operationalized a manufacturing facility in Smithfield, RI, that is currently providing cGMP supply for our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trials: RTX-240 in advanced solid tumors, RTX-240 in relapsed/refractory AML, RTX-240 in combination with pembrolizumab, RTX-321 in HPV 16-positive cancers and RTX-224 in advanced solid tumors.

We have industrialized the production of RCTs by developing and scaling up a manufacturing process by which hematopoietic progenitor cells are expanded, then biologically engineered and subsequently differentiated into erythroid cells (RCTs) that express biotherapeutic proteins within the cell or on the cell surface. The RED PLATFORM allows us to generate a wide variety of allogeneic, ready-to-use RCT product candidates with a universal and proprietary process.

In 2021, we achieved the following manufacturing milestones:

124

Table of Contents

Additional accomplishments include:

We have the potential to significantly expand our manufacturing capabilities and plan to stage additional investments based on future needs and in preparation for potential pivotal trial and eventual commercialization.

Since our inception, we have focused substantially all of our resources on building our proprietary RED PLATFORM, establishing and protecting our intellectual property portfolio, conducting research and development activities, developing our manufacturing process and manufacturing drug product material, organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations with proceeds from the sale of preferred stock and issuance of debt and with proceeds from our public offerings.

On July 20, 2018, we completed our IPO pursuant to which we issued and sold 12,055,450 shares of common stock, inclusive of 1,572,450 shares pursuant to the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. We received proceeds of $254.3 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs. In August 2019, we entered into a Distribution Agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC and SVB Leerink LLC with respect to an at-the-market, or ATM, offering program under which we may offer and sell, from time to time at our sole discretion, shares of our common stock, having aggregate gross proceeds of up to $100.0 million. We have not yet sold any shares of our common stock under the ATM offering program. In March 2021, we completed an underwritten public offering, or the March 2021 Offering, pursuant to which we issued and sold 6,896,552 shares of common stock. We received proceeds of $187.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our ability to generate any product revenue or product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We reported net losses of $196.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and $167.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $677.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years. We expect that our expenses and capital requirements will increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if, and as, we:

125

Table of Contents

We will not generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. If we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our commercialization capability to support product sales, marketing and distribution. Further, we expect to continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company.

As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public and private equity financings, debt financings, borrowings under our credit facility, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution and licensing arrangements. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other agreements or arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain funding, we plan to implement an operating plan that scales back our operations and focuses our available capital on a reduced number of activities and programs, which we believe will enable the continued advancement of certain of our research and development programs and the preservation of our technology platform. These actions could adversely affect our business prospects.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to generate product sales, we may not become profitable. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $225.8 million. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2023. See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
​

Impact of the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

​

Since March of 2020 and throughout the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented various precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of our employees, partners and prospective clinical trial participants, to comply with applicable national, state and local governmental orders, proclamations and/or directives in effect at any time aimed at minimizing the spread of COVID-19 and to minimize disruption to our operations. Such measures have included, at

126

Table of Contents

certain times, the elimination of business travel, shifting to remote work wherever possible and implementing rotating laboratory work schedules to reduce the number of people onsite at our facilities, advance ordering of certain raw materials impacted by delays in the global supply chain, as well as working with our external partners and clinical sites to utilize virtual clinical trial site training and monitoring, minimizing patient visits and instituting telemedicine to minimize patient exposure. We will continue to use these and other precautionary measures as required until such time as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including any subsequent outbreak whether or not due to emerging variants thereof, is contained.

​

While the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impacted manufacturing, supply chain and clinical trial activities worldwide, including those of our suppliers, vendors and clinical trial sites, these disruptions did not significantly impact our results of operations during 2020 or 2021. The ultimate impact on our operations, however, is unknown and will depend on future developments, such as the duration, spread and intensity of the pandemic, among others, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. In particular, global developments concerning COVID-19, including the identification of new strains of coronavirus, and the magnitude of interventions to contain the spread of viruses, such as government-mandated quarantines, shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel, shutdowns for non-essential businesses, requirements regarding social distancing, impact of government-imposed restrictions on the global supply chain, including through use of the Defense Production Act, distribution of vaccines and other public health safety measures, will determine the impact of the pandemic on our business. We are continuing to monitor the latest developments regarding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. However, any resulting financial impact cannot be reasonably estimated at this time and may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Recent Developments

​

During 2021, we strengthened our leadership team by appointing Dannielle Appelhans as Chief Operating Officer. Ms. Appelhans brings significant experience in building organizations as they evolve from early- to late-stage development, with a particular focus on clinical and commercial manufacturing and scaling supply chains. Additionally, Dr. Laurance Turka has been promoted to chief scientific officer and head of research & translational medicine. Joining Rubius Therapeutics as chief scientific officer in January 2020, Dr. Turka is an internationally recognized physician-scientist in autoimmunity and translational immunology with a distinguished career working in academia and, more recently, in the biotechnology industry where he has built a portfolio of novel therapies targeting immune cells.

Components of Our Results of Operations

​

Revenue

​

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the near future. If our development efforts for our product candidates are successful and result in regulatory approval or license or collaboration agreements with third parties, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales, payments from collaboration or license agreements that we may enter into with third parties, or any combination thereof.

Operating Expenses

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred for our research activities, including our drug discovery efforts, and the development and manufacturing of our product candidates, which include:

127

Table of Contents

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Advance payments that we make for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. The prepaid amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed.

Our direct research, manufacturing and development expenses are tracked on a program-by-program basis for clinical candidates. These consist mostly of fees, reimbursed materials, testing and other costs paid to consultants, contractors, CMOs and CROs, as well as the cost of materials incurred for internal manufacturing. In addition, starting in the first quarter of 2020, we allocate the cost of operating our manufacturing facility to research and development program costs, consisting of associated personnel costs, other than stock-based compensation expense, and manufacturing facility costs, including depreciation. We do not allocate costs associated with our platform development, early stage research and shared research and development, including associated personnel costs, laboratory supplies, non-manufacturing facilities expenses and other indirect costs, to research and development programs, because these costs are deployed across multiple programs and our technology platform and, as such, are not separately classified.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. We expect that our research and development expenses will increase substantially over time in connection with our planned preclinical and clinical development activities in the future. At this time, we cannot accurately estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development of any of our product candidates. The successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is highly uncertain. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development and commercialization, including the following:

128

Table of Contents

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of any of our product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses include salaries and related costs, including stock-based compensation, for personnel in executive, finance and administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include direct and allocated facility-related costs, as well as professional fees for legal, patent, consulting, investor and public relations, accounting and audit services. We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses may increase in the future as we continue to build infrastructure to support the expansion of our research activities, development of our product candidates and any expanded compliance requirements.

Other Income (Expense)

Interest Income

Interest income consists of interest earned on our invested cash balances.

​

Interest Expense

Interest expense consists of interest owed on outstanding borrowings under our Loan Agreement (as defined below), as well as amortization of debt discount.

​

129

Table of Contents

Other Income, Net

​

Other income, net consists of miscellaneous income and expense unrelated to our core operations.

​

Income Taxes

Since our inception, we have not recorded any income tax benefits for the net losses we have incurred in each year or for our research and development tax credits generated, as we believe, based upon the weight of available evidence, that it is more likely than not that all of our net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards and tax credits will not be realized. As of December 31, 2021, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $534.2 million and $534.8 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future taxable income. The federal NOLs include $37.2 million, which expire at various dates through 2037, and $497.0 million, which carryforward indefinitely. The state NOLs expire at various dates through 2041. As of December 31, 2021, we also had U.S. federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $22.7 million and $15.6 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future tax liabilities and begin to expire in 2034 and 2026, respectively. We have recorded a full valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets at each balance sheet date.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020:

​

Research and Development Expenses

​

​

130

Table of Contents

Research and development expenses were $141.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $116.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The decrease in direct costs related to our rare disease program of $5.0 million was due to the decision in March 2020 to deprioritize development of our rare disease programs and discontinue the RTX-134 Phase 1b clinical trial. The increase in direct costs of $28.7 million in our lead cancer programs, including RTX-240 and RTX-321, was principally related to costs incurred for the three arms of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RTX-240, including CRO costs and internal manufacturing costs, costs incurred for our Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-321 in patients with advanced HPV 16-positive cancers as well as start-up costs related to our Phase 1 clinical trial of RTX-224. The reduction in contract research and development and laboratory supplies and research materials of $0.7 million and $4.9 million, respectively, was mostly due to the shift from pilot-scale manufacturing activities to manufacturing activities to support the technical development of clinical candidates included in program expenses. The increase in stock-compensation expense of $4.3 million was driven by an increase in the market price of our common stock resulting in a higher valuation of options granted in 2021. Personnel-related costs increased $2.4 million due to headcount additions to support our expanded operations. Finally, facility related and other costs increased by $0.7 million due to increases in building operating costs.

General and Administrative Expenses

​

General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021 were $53.0 million, compared to $50.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in general and administrative expenses of $2.7 million was primarily the result of additional personnel-related expenses of $1.8 million resulting from rising headcount in our general and administrative function, including recruitment costs, to support our expanded operations. In addition, the increase in professional and consultant fees of $1.6 million was driven by additional patent costs as we expand our patent portfolio and the increase in facility-related and other expenses of $1.6 million was largely due to higher building operating costs and non-capitalized software costs. These increases were offset by a reduction in stock-based compensation expense of $2.4 million due principally to stock option awards that fully vested during the third quarter of 2021.

Interest Income

Interest income was less than $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. Interest income decreased due to lower prevailing interest rates.

​

Interest Expense

​

Interest expense was $6.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $4.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in interest expense was principally due to higher outstanding borrowings and a higher interest rate in connection with our Loan Agreement (as defined below).

Other Income, Net

Other income, net was $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in other income, net was due to the monetization of certain tax credits during the period.

​

​

131

Table of Contents

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2020 and 2019

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019: