SUTRO BIOPHARMA, INC. - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

w,

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 001-38662

SUTRO BIOPHARMA, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(650) 881-6500

(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 issuer (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. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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 the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant on June 30, 2022 (the last business day of the Registrant’s second fiscal quarter), based upon the closing price of $5.21 of the Registrant’s common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Global Market, was approximately $250.7 million.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 27, 2023, was 60,160,551.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Sutro Biopharma, Inc.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. All statements contained in this Annual Report other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, market size for our product candidates, potential future milestone and royalty payments, the value of the our holdings of Vaxcyte common stock, potential growth opportunities, nonclinical and clinical development activities, efficacy and safety profile of our product candidates, our ability to maintain and recognize the benefits of certain designations received by product candidates, our ability to successfully leverage Fast Track designation, the timing and results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials, collaboration with third parties, the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our operations, and the receipt and timing of potential regulatory designations, approvals and commercialization of product candidates, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “target,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this Annual Report may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this report to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law. You should read this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

Except where the context otherwise requires, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Sutro Biopharma, Inc.

Trademarks

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us or other companies. All trademarks, service marks and trade names included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

Summary of Risk Factors

Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those highlighted in the section titled “Risk Factors”. Some of these risks include:

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage oncology company developing site-specific and novel-format antibody drug conjugates, or ADCs, enabled by our proprietary integrated cell-free protein synthesis platform, XpressCF®, and our site-specific conjugation platform, XpressCF+®. We aim to design and develop therapeutics using the most relevant and potent modalities, including ADCs, bispecific ADCs, immunostimulatory ADCs, or iADCs, dual conjugate ADCs, or ADC2s, and cytokine derivatives. Our molecules are directed primarily against clinically validated targets where the current standard of care is suboptimal. We believe that our platform allows us to accelerate the discovery and development of potential first-in-class and/or best-in-class molecules by enabling the rapid and systematic evaluation of protein structure-activity relationships to create optimized homogeneous product candidates. Our mission is to transform the lives of patients by creating medicines with improved therapeutic profiles for areas of unmet need.

Our most advanced product candidate is STRO-002, or luveltamab tazevibulin, or luvelta, an ADC directed against folate receptor-alpha, or FolRα, for patients with FolRα-expressing cancers, including ovarian cancer. In 2019, we began enrolling patients in a Phase 1 trial of luvelta that focused on ovarian and endometrial cancers. The dose escalation portion of the luvelta Phase 1 trial has been completed and the dose expansion portion of the trial to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of luvelta is ongoing. In January 2023 we reported preliminary final results from the dose-expansion cohort. The data from the dose-escalation and dose expansion cohorts suggested that luvelta exhibited a manageable safety profile together with promising preliminary efficacy data in the tested patient population, as discussed in detail below. In August 2021, luvelta was granted Fast Track designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who have received one to three prior lines of systemic therapy. In mid-2022, we discussed with the FDA appropriate trial designs for a registration-directed trial of luvelta to potentially support accelerated approval. We expect to begin a registration-directed trial of luvelta for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the first half of 2023.

In addition, we have been offering compassionate use of luvelta to treat pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory CBFA2T3-GLIS2, or CBF/GLIS, acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, commonly known as RAM phenotype AML. Compassionate use data showed anti-leukemic activity of luvelta in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory CBF/GLIS AML and was presented at the 64th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition (ASH 2022) in December 2022. The data showed that luvelta was well tolerated as a monotherapy agent and in combination with standard cancer therapies. Luvelta was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA in December 2022 in this pediatric patient population.

Our next most advanced product candidate is STRO-001, an ADC directed against CD74, for patients with B-cell malignancies, such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL. We have an ongoing Phase 1 trial of STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma and NHL. STRO-001 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Our most recent data update was provided in December 2020, as discussed in more detail below. Based on such reported data, STRO-001 has been generally well-tolerated. We have completed dose escalation in the STRO-001 Phase 1 trial following identification of the maximum tolerated dose. In October 2021, we granted BioNova Pharmaceuticals Limited, or BioNova, an option to exclusively license the right to develop and commercialize STRO-001 in Greater China, or the BioNova Option Agreement. In February 2023, BioNova announced that the first patient had been dosed in the Phase 1 clinical trial of STRO-001.

We also have a preclinical product candidate - STRO-003, which is a single homogeneous ADC directed against an anti-receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 1, or ROR1, which we intend to develop for the treatment of solid tumors. Preparations are underway for IND-enabling studies for STRO-003, which we expect will be completed in the first quarter of 2024.

Enabled through our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms, we have entered into multi-target, product-focused collaborations with leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the field of oncology, including an immunostimulatory antibody-drug conjugates collaboration with Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, a cytokine derivatives collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, or Merck; a B Cell Maturation Antigen, or BCMA, ADC collaboration with Celgene Corporation, or Celgene, a

wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, or BMS; a MUC1-EGFR ADC collaboration with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany (operating in the United States and Canada under the name “EMD Serono”), or EMD Serono. Our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms have also supported Vaxcyte, Inc., or Vaxcyte, focused on discovery and development of vaccines for the treatment and prophylaxis of infectious disease. In the fourth quarter of 2022, Vaxcyte announced positive topline data from a Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study of its lead product candidate, VAX-24, its 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine candidate, under investigation for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults aged 18-64. Also in the fourth quarter of 2022, we entered into an agreement with Vaxcyte, granting it an option to access expanded rights to develop and manufacture cell-free extract for use in development and manufacture of its vaccine products, among certain other rights.

We believe our XpressCF® platform is the first and only current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, compliant and scalable cell-free protein synthesis technology that has resulted in multiple product candidates in clinical development. We believe key advantages of our cell-free protein synthesis platform over conventional biologic drug discovery and development include:

We plan to leverage these capabilities to accelerate the discovery and development of potential first-in-class and best-in-class molecules.

The benefits of our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms have resulted in collaborations with leaders in the field of oncology, including Astellas, Merck, BMS and EMD Serono. In 2022, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement with Astellas, for the development of immunostimulatory antibody-drug conjugates for up to three biological targets. Our collaboration with Merck resulted in MK-1484, a selective IL-2 agonist that Merck is developing as a monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of solid tumors. We announced the dosing of the first patient with MK-1484 in a Phase I study in the third quarter of 2022. Our BMS collaboration yielded CC-99712, a novel ADC therapeutic directed against BCMA. BMS is studying CC-99712 in a Phase 1 trial initiated in 2019, both as a monotherapy and in combination with a gamma secretase inhibitor, in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. CC-99712 has been granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Finally, our collaboration with EMD Serono yielded a novel bispecific ADC product candidate targeting EGFR and MUC1, known as M1231, for which an IND submission was filed in 2020. Recently, EMD Serono decided to close the Phase 1a trial of M1231 in patients with solid tumors and not initiate a previously planned expansion study. EMD Serono stated that the decision was based on strategic portfolio considerations. Through December 31, 2022, we have received an aggregate of approximately $621 million in payments from all of our collaborations, which includes approximately $54 million in investments in our stock. We intend to selectively enter into additional collaborations with partners who are seeking efficient and effective drug discovery, preclinical development and manufacturing capabilities for the creation of novel therapeutics.

As discussed above, we are developing luvelta for the treatment of ovarian and endometrial cancers. In addition to the development discussed above, an expansion cohort assessing the effects of administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in combination with luvelta opened for enrollment in the second quarter of 2022; interim results from this cohort were presented in January 2023.

Other studies ongoing for luvelta include a trial assessing the combination of luvelta with bevacizumab for treatment of ovarian cancer and an expansion cohort for FolRα-selected endometrial cancer that opened for enrollment in the fourth quarter of 2021. Additionally, luvelta was provided to pediatric patients with CBF/GLIS AML on a compassionate use basis. Translational work is also ongoing to support an investigational new drug, or IND, application for the initiation of a non-small cell lung cancer study, for which submission is planned in 2023.

In December 2021, we entered into the Tasly License Agreement, as amended in April 2022, to develop and commercialize luvelta in the Greater China territory. We believe that our collaboration with Tasly extends the opportunity to realize the potential value of luvelta through clinical development and commercialization in Greater China.

We have also been internally developing STRO-001, which we believe has the potential to be a first-in-class and best-in-class ADC directed against CD74, an antigen that is highly expressed in many B cell malignancies. We have completed enrollment for STRO-001 dose escalation in a Phase 1 trial for multiple myeloma and NHL. STRO-001 has been generally well-tolerated and no ocular toxicity signals have been observed, with no patients receiving prophylactic corticosteroid eye drops. The maximum tolerated dose of STRO-001 has been identified.

In October 2021, we entered into the BioNova Option Agreement. We believe that our collaboration with BioNova extends the opportunity to realize the potential value of STRO-001 through clinical development and commercialization in Greater China. In February 2023, BioNova announced that the first patient had been dosed in the Phase 1 clinical trial of STRO-001 in which BioNova will conduct further dose optimization.

We are also developing STRO-003, which we believe has the potential to be a first-in-class and best-in-class ADC targeting ROR1. Preclinical data suggest that STRO-003 has potent antitumor activity and potential for a differentiated safety profile. Preparations are underway for IND-enabling studies for STRO-003, which we expect will be completed in the first quarter of 2024.

Beyond these programs and collaborations, we are developing a broader pipeline of next-generation protein therapeutics using our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. Our protein engineering and chemistry efforts are focused on maximizing therapeutic indices, and our technology allows us to rapidly test our therapeutic hypothesis in significantly more product candidates than conventional protein synthesis allows in order to identify the best molecule to advance to the clinic. We are also actively pursuing the discovery and development of other novel ADCs, including iADCs, bispecific ADCs, and ADC2s.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to use our proprietary XpressCF® platform to create product candidates primarily against clinically validated targets. Key elements of our strategy are to:

Cancer Remains a Major Unmet Medical Need

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in the United States and is the leading cause of death for those under 65 years of age. The American Cancer Society estimated that there would be greater than 1.9 million new cases of cancer diagnosed and approximately 610,000 people would die of cancer in the United States in 2023.

Traditional Cancer Therapeutics

Cancer treatment has traditionally included chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, or a combination of these approaches. Chemotherapy agents and other small molecule targeted therapies can be effective in certain types of cancer, but they can also cause toxicities that may lead to life-threatening consequences, lower quality of life or early termination of treatment. Furthermore, these agents offer limited efficacy in many types of cancer.

Over the last twenty years, new paradigms of cancer research and treatment have emerged to address the limitations of existing treatments. Some of the most promising new approaches involve biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies are proteins that bind to antigen targets on tumor cells and inhibit tumor growth, or block processes that provide nourishment for the tumor. As a drug class, monoclonal antibodies have transformed the treatment of oncology and represent some of the top selling therapies on the market, resulting in more than $67 billion in sales in 2021 across all oncology indications.

Despite the success of conventional monoclonal antibodies, they still have limitations. For example, the response seen with monoclonal antibodies can be variable, with some patients responding, while others do not. In addition, the response is often not durable, and many patients relapse or become refractory to treatment. Also, safety and tolerability concerns often limit the use of higher, potentially more efficacious doses. Additional modalities such as ADCs have shown promise over the last decade with fourteen approvals and over a hundred ADC candidates investigated in the clinic. ADCs use the foundation of monoclonal antibodies and small molecule drugs by targeting the delivery of chemotherapeutics to the tumor. They have shown clinical benefit in hematological and solid tumors, and often have a better safety profile than systemically delivered chemotherapeutics. We believe our XpressCF® platform will provide enhanced therapeutic approaches for treating cancer to address these unmet needs and are exploring next generation biologics, including ADCs, iADCs, and ADC 2 s. The expectation is that multiple therapeutic modalities will be used in novel combinations to treat patients and provide the most potent anti-cancer effect.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs)

After more than two decades of industry efforts, several new modalities of highly potent monoclonal antibody-based therapies have emerged, including ADCs. The key components of ADCs include an antibody, a stable linker, and a cytotoxic agent (warhead). The antibody is used to target and deliver cytotoxic agents to tumor cells. ADCs can be mono, bispecific, or multi-specific. The intended result of this powerful and targeted approach is greater tumor cell death and less systemic tolerability issues as compared to traditional chemotherapy. The following diagram shows the component parts of an ADC.

Currently, there are more than 180 ADCs being explored in clinical development. Kadcyla and Adcetris were the first of the new generation of ADCs to be approved for the treatment of specific subsets of breast cancer and lymphoma, respectively. Several more ADCs are currently on the market in the U.S.: Besponsa, Mylotarg, Lumoxiti, Polivy, Zynlonta, and Zevalin were approved for the treatment of specific subsets of leukemia and lymphoma; Padcev was approved for the treatment of bladder and urinary tract cancers; Enhertu and Trodelvy were approved for the treatment of breast cancer; Tivdak was approved for the treatment of cervical cancer; and ELAHERE™ was approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer. All of these approved therapies demonstrate that ADCs have an emerging role in the armamentarium of cancer therapeutics.

Limitations to Current ADC Approaches

Despite the approvals of these ADCs, there have been challenges in achieving the full clinical potential of this modality. We believe these challenges are directly related to the following:

Dual conjugations to enable iADC and ADC2 modalities

XpressCF® enables the incorporation of non-natural amino acids into antibody sequences and results in site specific conjugation of drug payloads. More recently, we have developed technology to enable incorporation of two different non-natural amino acids that allows for the site-specific conjugation of two different payloads, providing the opportunity to combine pharmacology into a single molecule. We believe this is the first use of dual conjugation combining a conventional cytotoxin with an immune stimulatory payload to drive not only direct killing of the tumor cells but an immune response against the tumor. These iADC molecules utilize immune agonists such as TLR 7, TLR 8 and STING to induce activation of innate immune cells within the tumor microenvironment and resulted in more complete responses and protective anti-tumor immune responses in preclinical tumor models. This dual conjugation approach is the basis for our research collaboration with Astellas that is focused on the discovery of iADC molecules for solid tumors. In addition to immune modulators, additional payloads can be incorporated into our dual conjugation approach. These ADC2 payloads are focused on targets that are upregulated tumors that do not respond well to existing therapies. Our goal is to provide more durable responses in hard-to-treat tumors by combining two payloads that may offset resistance mechanisms.

Cytokine-Based Immuno-Oncology Therapeutics

Cytokines are small biologically active proteins that play an essential role in immune cell function. Cytokines are important for cell-to-cell communication and are responsible for controlling immune cell growth and differentiation. Recombinant human cytokines were among the first biotechnology products engineered for therapeutic use and, in the field of oncology, cytokines that stimulate the immune system to attack cancer cells have been viewed as a potential new approach.

Certain cytokines play a central role in T cell function, contributing to the careful balance between helpful and harmful immune responses. These can be powerful activators of the immune system but can also suppress immune responses through certain specialized T cells that have suppressive functions. A previously approved cytokine therapeutic Proleukin® had shown therapeutic benefit in a small number of cancer patients, but its therapeutic use was limited due to toxicity. Scientists at other companies have focused research on finding ways to modify cytokines so as to reduce toxicity while maintaining therapeutic benefit. The observed efficacy of a modified cytokine, in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, indicates the potential of this new approach. In light of these data and our prior research into cytokines, we commenced a cytokine-based research program using our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platform technologies to engineer cytokines aimed at better exposure and tolerability profiles. Our collaboration with Merck focused on developing cytokine derivatives yielded an IL-2 derivative that entered Phase 1 in 2022. We believe that recent advances in immuno-oncology combined with new protein engineering technologies create opportunities to identify novel cytokine-based therapeutics with superior therapeutic indexes.

Our Proprietary XpressCF® Platform

While ADCs, iADCs, ADC2s and engineered cytokines hold significant promise, drug developers working with these complex biologics face significant design and development challenges. Optimizing these complex biological structures is a challenging, trial and error process that requires the refinement of several properties in tandem. This iterative process is cumbersome and fraught with significant limitations. As a result, the drug candidate nominated for development is often plagued by inefficient design properties, which then translates to a suboptimal therapeutic index when investigated in the clinic.

Our XpressCF® platform seeks to address these significant shortcomings. We believe our cell-free-based protein synthesis technology allows for efficient and proper design exploration to be conducted prior to nominating a lead drug candidate. In addition, we believe we can optimally design these types of complex biologics in a

manner that is ideal for subsequent production at relevant scale and manufacture. We believe we are the only company with products in clinical development that has the capability to produce cell-free-based protein synthesis at scale. We believe we have a significant advantage over other development approaches in this space.

Overview of Our XpressCF® Platform

Our XpressCF® platform is fundamentally different from the conventional cell-based protein synthesis approach in that we separate the production of the cell mass from the production of the protein.

We first generate a cellular mass from our proprietary cell line from which we harvest the inner cellular machinery for making proteins. The cellular mass is generated from our highly engineered variant of Escherichia coli, or E.coli bacteria, and has been optimized to make extract that produces complex mammalian proteins. These cells are grown over the course of several days, harvested, broken apart, clarified, and stored as a cell mass for future production of our protein therapeutics. We refer to this proprietary cell mass as extract, or XtractCF®. The extract includes necessary components for energy production, transcription and translation and can be used to support cell-free protein synthesis. This extract can then be used agnostically to manufacture a wide variety of therapeutic proteins and protein fragments without the need to generate further cell lines.

As a result, protein synthesis then becomes a predictable and reproducible biochemical reaction, independent of the constraints of a cell. A specific DNA sequence is added to the extract, which results in the coding and expression of the desired protein in less than 24 hours. Using this process, we express hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences simultaneously within the same cell-free extract system and therefore can make and purify hundreds or thousands of unique proteins at the same time. This allows us to perform rapid expression, testing and characterization of many variants early in discovery to elucidate structure-activity relationships. Structure-activity relationship refers to how changes to the structure of a protein can lead to improvements in a molecule’s properties, such as binding, internalization, functional activity and stability, which are properties that are key to the therapeutic protein’s efficacy and tolerability in the patient. We are thereby able to optimize many properties with high specificity, including: binding efficiency to each antigen target, spatial orientation, linker design, target killing efficiency, immunological activity, protein expression, and folding efficiency and stability.

Advantages of Our XpressCF® Platform

We believe the advantages of our cell-free-based protein synthesis technology platform include:

Our XpressCF® Solution for ADCs, iADCs, Bispecific ADCs, and ADC2 Therapeutics

As a result, we believe our technology enables new approaches to ADCs, iADCs, bispecific ADCs, and ADC2 drug discovery, development and manufacturing. Key attributes are:

Accordingly, we use our XpressCF® platform to discover and develop cancer therapeutics by empirically determining the optimum structure-activity relationships for cytokine-based immuno-oncology therapeutics, ADCs, iADCs, bispecific ADCs and ADC2s and transitioning those products to cGMP compliant manufacturing.

Our Collaborations Validate Our Technology

Our XpressCF® platform has garnered the attention of leading pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and resulted in collaborations to discover and develop novel therapeutics. We have leveraged these strategic partnerships to extend our own capabilities and broaden the scope of our XpressCF® platform. Through December 31, 2022, all of our collaborations have provided us with an aggregate of approximately $621 million in payments, which includes approximately $54 million in investments in our stock. Our collaborations include:

Our current product candidates and Discovery and Preclinical stage programs, all based on our proprietary XpressCF® platform, are summarized in the chart below:

Our Product Candidates

Luveltamab tazevibulin (luvelta), an ADC Directed Against the Target Folate Receptor-Alpha (FolRα)

Overview

We are developing luveltamab tazevibulin, or luvelta, an optimally designed ADC directed against the cancer target FolRα, initially focused on ovarian and endometrial cancers. Luvelta was designed and optimized for an improved therapeutic index by placing a precise number of linker-warheads at four specific locations within the antibody using our proprietary XpressCF+® platform. Phase 1 trial enrollment, focused on ovarian and endometrial cancers, began in March 2019, with updated dose-escalation data presented in December 2020 and May 2021. We reported initial dose-expansion data in January 2022 and a near-final dataset in January 2023. Based on such reported data, Luvelta exhibited a manageable safety profile and promising preliminary efficacy data. Dose escalation in the Phase 1 trial has been fully enrolled and the dose-expansion portion of the trial is ongoing to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of luvelta at dose levels of 4.3 and 5.2 mg/kg. For the dose-expansion portion of the Phase 1 trial, we dosed the first patient in January 2021 and have enrolled less heavily pre-treated ovarian cancer patients. Additionally, a combination cohort in ovarian cancer, assessing the combination of luvelta with bevacizumab, opened for enrollment in December 2021, and an expansion cohort for FolRa-selected endometrial cancer opened and began enrolling patients in the fourth quarter of 2021. An expansion cohort assessing the effects of administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in combination with luvelta opened for enrollment in the second quarter of 2022; interim results from this cohort were also presented in January 2023. In August 2021, we were granted Fast Track designation for luvelta by the FDA for the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, who have received one to three prior lines of systemic therapy. In December 2021, we entered into a collaboration and exclusive license agreement with Tasly to develop and commercialize luvelta in Greater China.

Luvelta has been provided through compassionate use to pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory CBF/GLIS AML, which data were presented at ASH 2022. The data showed that luvelta was well tolerated as a monotherapy agent and in combination with standard cancer therapies. In December 2022, luvelta was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for this pediatric indication.

Ovarian Cancer Overview

Ovarian cancer is the most common cause of cancer death from gynecologic tumors in the United States, and the fifth most common cause of cancer death in women. In the United States alone, the American Cancer Society estimates that 19,000 new cases of ovarian cancer would be diagnosed in 2023, and approximately 13,270 women would die of this disease. Given that early stages of the disease cause minimal, nonspecific symptoms or are asymptomatic, approximately 75% of patients with ovarian cancer are diagnosed as stage III and IV, for which the prognosis is poor. Standard pre- or post-operative chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is combination therapy with a platinum compound and a taxane, for example, carboplatin and paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab which achieves a complete or partial response in between 70% to 80% of patients. Increasingly, PARP inhibitors are being used in the maintenance setting. Patients who are refractory or resistant to platinum-based treatments are then treated with a host of additional palliative chemotherapeutic agents, each showing only marginal benefit with response rates to single agent chemotherapy of 10-12% and progression free survival of 3-4 months. This represents a significant unmet need.

Endometrial Cancer Overview

There is also a significant unmet need in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer. In the United States alone, the American Cancer Society estimated 66,000 new cases of endometrial cancer in 2023, and that approximately 13,000 women would die of this disease. First-line treatment for stage III/IV disease is commonly paclitaxel/carboplatin. Recently, the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab was approved for the treatment of patients with advanced, metastatic endometrial cancer who have disease progression following prior systemic therapy with a platinum doublet. With the lack of available therapies for patients who progress after standard of care therapies, long-term survival prospects are poor and novel treatments offering even a modest improvement in progression-free survival or overall survival may be considered for expedited regulatory approval.

Pediatric AML CBFA2T3-GLIS2 (CBF/GLIS) Phenotype Overview

There remains a significant unmet need in the treatment of CBF/GLIS AML in pediatric patients. The CBF/GLIS subtype of AML is a rare, aggressive form of AML that has never been found in adult AML patients, and typically affects pediatric patients with a median age of 1.5 years. The prevalence of CBF/GLIS AML is 1%-3% in childhood AML, and in recent studies the incidence was determined to be 1.3%-1.8% of pediatric AML patients. The prognosis for this disease is grim, with a 5-year overall survival of 15-30%. The first-line treatment for this disease is chemotherapy with a goal of reducing disease burden to the point that the patient can receive a bone marrow transplant. Patients who are refractory to primary chemotherapy or who relapse following bone marrow transplant have no additional treatment options and have very poor treatment outcomes. Given the lack of treatment options for these patients, a novel treatment that offers an opportunity for these patients to become eligible for bone marrow transplantation may be considered for expedited regulatory review.

Limitations to Current FolRα-Targeted Therapeutics

There have been a number of FolRα-targeted therapies in development, including naked antibodies, small molecule drug conjugates, ADCs, and T cell retargeting molecules. The most advanced clinically active agent targeting FolRα to date has been Immunogen’s ELAHERE™ (mirvetuximab soravtansine IMGN853), an ADC composed of a FolRα-binding antibody linked to the tubulin-disrupting maytansinoid, DM4, via a cleavable linker.

In November 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to Immunogen for ELAHERE™ for the treatment of adult patients with FRα-positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, who have received one to three prior systemic treatment regimens. Patients are selected for therapy based on an FDA-approved test that defines FRα-positivity by 2+ and/or 3+ IHC staining in ≥75% of tumor cells.

BMS and Eisai Co., Ltd., or Eisai, are also co-developing a FolRα-targeted ADC for the treatment of cancers, including ovarian cancers, identified as MORAb-202. MORAb-202 is an ADC made from the anti-FolRα antibody farletuzumab conjugated to an average of four eribulin molecules via a cleavable linker. Public information about MORAb-202 development is limited, but a Phase II efficacy study of MORAb-202 was described as open and enrolling on the clinical trials.gov website in the fourth quarter of 2022. Also, Elucida Oncology is developing a nanoparticle C’Dot drug conjugate targeting FolRα.

Our Solution, luveltamab tazevibulin (luvelta)

Luvelta targets FolRα, a surface protein with limited expression on normal tissue and overexpressed in multiple cancers, including ovarian cancer, which makes FolRα a promising ADC approach.

Luvelta employs a cleavable linker that releases a cytotoxic drug inside tumor cells, while being stable and resistant to cleavage in general circulation. The cytotoxic drug used is our proprietary hemiasterlin moiety. From a safety perspective, we designed luvelta to have what we believe to be the optimal potency-to-safety ratio. We therefore rationally selected a homogenous ADC with an optimized DAR of four.

Based on preclinical findings, we believe our efficient homogeneous design of luvelta could provide anti-tumor activity, stability, and safety with the potential to minimize off-target damage and improve clinical benefit. We believe an improved therapeutic index could differentiate luvelta from conventional technology for the treatment of ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer. To test this, we have created a benchmark FolRα-targeting surrogate molecule based on conventional technology that has a heterogeneous ADC, with a similar DAR utilizing a DM4 linker-warhead. We have tested this benchmark molecule against luvelta in multiple preclinical models. However, additional preclinical and clinical testing will be needed to determine the safety and efficacy of luvelta and to obtain regulatory approval, if ever obtained.

Clinical Development Plan

Our first Phase 1 trial for luvelta is an open-label study evaluating luvelta as a monotherapy for patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. This trial is being conducted in two-parts, dose escalation and dose expansion. We began enrolling ovarian cancer patients in March 2019, with updated data for the dose escalation cohort reported in December 2020 and May 2021. The primary objectives of the clinical trial are to determine the safety and tolerability profile, to define the recommended Phase 2 dose level and interval, and to evaluate preliminary anti-tumor activity. Our secondary objectives are to characterize human pharmacokinetics and additional safety, tolerability, and efficacy measures.

We initially enrolled adult patients with advanced and/or refractory ovarian cancer, for whom no suitable treatment exists. These patients are considered to have incurable disease and need repeated courses of life-prolonging and palliative treatment. The initial Phase 1 trial enrolled ovarian cancer patients regardless of their FolRα expression levels. These ovarian cancer patients were enrolled in a dose escalation cohort, with luvelta administered on day one of a 21-day cycle. Since anti-tumor activity was observed during the fully enrolled dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 trial, we initiated enrollment of patients in the dose expansion portion of this clinical study in January 2021 and are treating less heavily pre-treated ovarian cancer patients. The dose expansion portion of this Phase 1 study of luvelta is fully enrolled and currently ongoing.

In May 2021, we announced updated data from the dose-escalation portion of our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of STRO-002 in patients with ovarian cancer. The dose-escalation portion of the trial was fully enrolled with 39 patients in August 2020. Patients were heavily pre-treated and had a median of six prior lines of therapy, including standard of care platinum-based regimens, bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors, and checkpoint inhibitors.

The dose-escalation portion of the Phase 1 trial included 34 patients treated with clinically active dose levels, 2.9 mg/kg or higher, of which 31 patients had post-baseline scans and were evaluable for RECIST response. At the data cutoff of April 23, 2021, results out of 31 evaluable patients included:

Based on the results of the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 trial discussed above, we identified dose levels of 4.3 and 5.2 mg/kg to study in the dose-expansion portion of the Phase 1 trial. For the dose-expansion portion, we dosed the first patient in January 2021 and are treating less heavily pre-treated ovarian cancer patients. We reported initial dose-expansion data in January 2022 and preliminary final data in January 2023. We also initiated an exploratory dose expansion cohort of 15 patients to assess the safety of treatment with luvelta at 5.2 mg/kg in combination with prophylactic pegfilgrastim, and interim results from this cohort were also presented in January 2023.

The dose-expansion cohort for ovarian cancer fully enrolled 44 patients, who had experienced up to three prior lines of therapy and were randomized into dose levels starting at 4.3 mg/kg (N=23) and 5.2 mg/kg (n=21). 81% of the patients were platinum-resistant, and 66% and 82% of the patients had been treated previously with bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors, respectively.

The patients were also assessed for FolRα expression. Higher FolRα expression levels calculated using tumor proportion scores, or TPS, correlated with higher response rates. We have identified TPS as a potentially appropriate scoring algorithm for luvelta with respect to the biomarker enrichment strategy. Of the 44 patients in this cohort, 9 had a TPS score of less than or equal to 25%, while 35 had a TPS score of greater than 25%. Of these 35 patients, as of the data cutoff date of November 8, 2022, 32 had at least one post-baseline scan, and therefore were evaluable for RECIST v1.1 responses.

The results demonstrated that luvelta provided substantial clinical benefit in FolRα-selected patients, defined by TPS of >25%, with a 37.5% overall response rate (ORR), median DOR of 5.5 months, and median PFS of 6.1 months, regardless of starting dose. Results also demonstrated the higher starting dose of 5.2 mg/kg provided greater patient benefit compared to the lower starting dose of 4.3mg/kg. FolRα-selected patients account for approximately 80% of the patient population in advanced ovarian cancer, as represented in the patient stratification in the Phase 1 study.

In particular:
 

Safety signals from the 44 patients at the 5.2 mg/kg and 4.3 mg/kg starting dose levels, were consistent with data from the dose-escalation cohort, including:

In 2022 we initiated an exploratory cohort, or cohort C, of 15 patients to assess the safety of treatment with luvelta at 5.2 mg/kg in combination with prophylactic pegfilgrastim and presented preliminary data from ten patients from this cohort in January 2023. Early results from these initial 10 patients in cohort C, when compared to patients who were not given prophylactic pegfilgrastim in the dose-expansion cohort at the 5.2 mg/kg dose (n=21) demonstrated substantial reductions in Grade 3+ neutropenia and instances of dose delays. In particular:

Additionally, we opened for enrollment a Phase 1 trial to assess the combination of STRO-002 and bevacizumab for treatment of ovarian cancer in December 2021 and began enrolling patients in an expansion cohort for FolRα-selected endometrial cancer in the fourth quarter of 2021. We expect to present initial results from each of these studies in the second half of 2023. Further, we plan to submit an IND for the treatment of NSCLC with luvelta by the end of 2023 or in early 2024.

We are also seeking to develop luvelta for the treatment of CBF/GLIS AML in pediatric patients. Initial access to luvelta in this indication has been provided through compassionate use. Initial data on the anti-leukemic activity of luvelta in 17 pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory CBF/GLIS AML was presented at ASH 2022.

The ASH 2022 presentation included results from 17 patients treated with luvelta that were relapsed or refractory to standard of care treatments. The median age of the patients treated was two years old and the median number of prior therapies was two. Eight of the patients had previously undergone a stem cell transplant (SCT). Luvelta was well-tolerated as a monotherapy agent and in combination with standard of care therapies. In the 17 patients treated, Best Overall Response (BOR) included eight patients with complete remission (CR), of which seven patients were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative. 47% of the patients achieved complete remission and 53% of the patients achieved partial response or stable disease. Responders were observed in varying contexts, including those with or without prior stem cell transplant and in monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic therapy.

We met with the FDA to discuss our clinical development plan for luvelta to treat pediatric CFB/GLIS AML in January 2023 and plan to submit an IND for this indication in the first half of 2023.

STRO-001, an ADC Directed Against the Cancer Target CD74

Overview

We are developing STRO-001, an optimally designed ADC directed against the cancer target CD74, for multiple myeloma and NHL. STRO-001 was designed and optimized for maximal therapeutic index by placing linker-warheads at specific locations within the antibody using our proprietary XpressCF+® platform. We have completed enrollment for STRO-001 in a Phase 1 trial for multiple myeloma and NHL for which we reported updated data in December 2020. Based on such reported data, STRO-001 has been generally well-tolerated and no ocular toxicity signals have been observed, with no patients receiving prophylactic corticosteroid eye drops. The maximum tolerated dose of STRO-001 has been identified. We have paused further enrollment of patients in the STRO-001 Phase 1 trial following identification of the maximum tolerated dose. In October 2018, we were granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. In October 2021, we entered into the BioNova Option Agreement.

CD74 Overview and Current Limitations

CD74 is a transmembrane glycoprotein, or a protein with an attached sugar that spans the inside and outside of a cell. While normal tissues appear to have minimal CD74 expression levels, CD74 is an important B cell target for multiple myelomas and lymphomas. CD74 is expressed in approximately 90% of B cell cancers, including multiple myeloma and lymphoma.

Currently, there are no approved therapeutics that specifically target CD74 for treatment of B cell malignancies. We believe earlier ADCs being developed against the target CD74 were ineffective either because

they failed to achieve sufficient killing of malignant B cells or they were unable to achieve a sufficient therapeutic benefit before toxicities limited further dose escalations.

B Cell Malignancies Overview and Current Limitations

B cell malignancy tumor subtypes include multiple myeloma and NHL, which includes mantle cell lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma, or DLBCL, and follicular lymphoma. In the United States alone in 2019, the prevalence of multiple myeloma and NHL was estimated at more than 920,000 cases, and the American Cancer Society estimated that there would be more than 116,000 new cases of multiple myeloma and NHL in 2023. Although several therapeutics have recently been approved for the treatment of specific B cell malignancies, including immunotherapies, targeted kinase inhibitors, ADC and CAR-T cell therapies, unmet need persists. Many of these therapeutics are typically used in combination with other agents to provide the most potent anti-cancer effect. While these new therapies have demonstrated improvements in survival, the majority of these patients ultimately relapse during treatment and some experience a resistance to therapy.

Our Solution, STRO-001

Our first internally developed product candidate is STRO-001, which we believe has the potential to be a first-in-class and best-in-class ADC directed against the cancer target CD74, an antigen that is highly expressed in many B cell malignancies and is an attractive target for an ADC therapeutic, given its rapid internalization by the cell. STRO-001 is an ADC targeting the CD74 protein antigen that was developed using our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. STRO-001 is composed of an antibody stably conjugated to a highly potent cytotoxic drug, a maytansinoid derivative, at two specific sites on the antibody using a non-cleavable linker. STRO-001 degrades inside of tumor cells to release very potent intracellular catabolites whose hydrophilic nature results in poor permeability into surrounding cells. We believe this decreases the potential of off-target effect in normal tissues. From a safety perspective, we designed STRO-001 to have an optimal potency to toxicity ratio. We rationally selected a homogeneous ADC with a drug-antibody ratio, or DAR, of two. Heterogeneous ADCs typically have DARs that range from zero to eight, with lower DARs generally being associated with less potency and higher DARs generally being associated with a negative impact on pharmacokinetics and toxicity. We chose a DAR of two after demonstrating that DARs of four or six did not increase the preclinical efficacy of STRO-001. In October 2018, we were granted orphan drug designation by the FDA, for STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial

The Phase 1 trial for STRO-001 is an open-label study that is evaluating STRO-001 as a monotherapy for patients with multiple myeloma and NHL. The trial is being conducted in two parts: dose escalation and dose expansion. The primary objectives of the trial are to determine the safety and tolerability profile of STRO-001, determine the recommended Phase 2 dose and interval and evaluate preliminary anti-tumor activity. The secondary objectives are to characterize the human pharmacokinetics of STRO-001 and additional safety, tolerability and efficacy measures.

Our Phase 1 trial of STRO-001 has been enrolling adult patients with advanced and/or refractory multiple myeloma and NHL (including DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma) who are refractory to, or intolerant of, all established therapies known to provide clinical benefit for their condition. Multiple myeloma and NHL patients have been enrolled in two separate dose escalation cohorts, starting initially with an accelerated dose titration design. Treatment is currently scheduled on day one of a 21-day cycle.

We submitted our IND for STRO-001 in December 2017 and the first patient was dosed in April 2018. In October 2018, we were granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

In December 2020, we reported data from the NHL cohort from the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 trial as of October 30, 2020:

We have reached the maximum tolerated dose for STRO-001 and have paused further enrollment of patients in the Phase 1 study. The next phase of development for STRO-001 includes further dose optimization by BioNova in the Greater China territory. BioNova announced in February 2023 the dosing of the first patient in a phase 1 clinical study of STRO-001 for the treatment of advanced NHL.

In October 2021, we entered into the BioNova Option Agreement to confer BioNova the option to obtain exclusive rights to develop and commercialize STRO-001 in Greater China. BioNova intends to pursue the clinical development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of STRO-001 in multiple indications, including NHL, multiple myeloma, and leukemia in the licensed territory. We will retain development and commercial rights of STRO-001 globally outside of Greater China, including the United States.

STRO-003, An ADC Directed Against ROR-1

We have recently progressed the development candidacy of STRO-003, a ROR1 ADC for the treatment of ROR1-expressing solid tumors, including triple negative breast cancer, or TNBC, NSCLC, and ovarian cancer. STRO-003 is an anti-ROR1 human IgG1 antibody conjugated using our XpressCF+® platform technology to a cleavable DBCO-PEGylated β-glucuronide-exatecan linker-payload, at a DAR of approximately 8. Currently, there are no therapeutics approved that specifically target ROR1, although there is one ROR1-targeting ADC, zilovertamab vedotin, or ZV (also known as MK-2140, VLS-101), in Phase 2 testing targeting DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma, or MCL, NSCLC, and breast cancer. Based on preclinical in vitro and in vivo data, we believe that STRO-003 has the potential for an improved therapeutic index compared to ZV. We believe these features present a unique opportunity for clinical development of STRO-003 to address unmet medical needs in hematological malignancies, ovarian cancer, TNBC and NSCLC.

We believe STRO-003 has been precisely designed and optimized to provide the potential for a best-in-class ADC targeting ROR-1. Our proprietary non-natural amino acid, which provides the substrate for conjugation to our proprietary β-glucuronidase cleavable exatecan linker warhead, have been placed at what we believe are the optimal sites in the amino acid sequence of our high affinity anti-ROR1 antibody, resulting in enhanced performance and stability in preclinical in vitro and in vivo models. These models also suggest that our β-glucuronidase cleavable linkers may provide greater tumor specificity and enhanced tolerability relative to a protease-cleavable linker delivering an exatecan payload. In particular, in a non-human primate safety study, we did not observe neutropenia, ocular toxicity signals or lung toxicity signals even in the highest dose cohort for STRO-003. Finally, our preclinical testing has shown that the exatecan payload delivered by STRO-003 elicits potent tumor cell killing, bystander activity and immunogenic cell death, which we believe may provide meaningful clinical benefit to patients.

STRO-003 Business Opportunity

We believe ROR1 is a favorable target for an ADC due to its limited normal tissue expression, as well as its prevalence in solid tumors and B cell malignancies, including CLL, DLBCL, MCL, TNBC, NSCLC, and ovarian cancer. Its expression is correlated with poor prognosis in different cancers. Currently, there are no approved therapeutics that specifically target ROR1, but it is a target of increasing interest with several clinical-stage ADCs in development, including ZV (Phase 2), NBE-002 (Phase 1), and CS5001 (Phase 1). We have developed site-specific ADCs targeting ROR1 and have nominated STRO-003 for further development.

Additional Discovery Efforts

Our technology allows us to rapidly incorporate non-natural amino acids in varying numbers and positions, to identify the best cytokine modification for pharmacological activity, pharmacokinetics, and safety. Furthermore, our technology enables rapid preclinical development and transition to cGMP manufacturing, ensuring speed to clinic in a promising field. Our drug discovery teams are exploring novel immuno-oncology therapies, including cytokine-based therapies.

We are also actively researching to identify new ADCs to add to our pipeline. We have multiple ADC discovery programs ongoing using our XpressCF+® platform. Our protein engineering and chemistry efforts are focused on maximizing therapeutic indices, and our technology allows us to rapidly test our therapeutic hypothesis in significantly more product candidates than conventional protein synthesis allows in order to identify the best molecule to advance to the clinic. We have also expanded our ADC technology platform to include iADCs. Our XpressCF+® platform has enabled a groundbreaking technology to engineer homogeneous, dually conjugated immunostimulant and cytotoxic warheads on a single ADC molecule. Our novel iADC design is intended to deliver two different drugs directly to the tumor, and not only kill tumor cells but also locally prime an immune response to the patient’s particular tumor cells. We believe that our iADC approach creates a new therapeutic opportunity by combining the best features of an ADC with the biology of a personalized vaccine.

In addition, development of our XpressCF+® platform to enable homogenous, dually-conjugated iADCs also enables us to discover, develop and manufacture ADC2 molecules. In these ADC2 molecules, two different linker-warheads are precisely conjugated at specific positions to deliver two different small molecule payloads to a single cancer cell. We are actively investigating different combinations of payloads to identify synergistic pairings with differentiated toxicity profiles. We believe such ADC2 molecules have the potential to provide the next generation of highly potent cancer therapeutics with acceptable safety and tolerability.

Our bispecific antibody drug discovery programs are focused on bispecific ADCs. We believe such compounds can provide improved specificity for tumors and could potentially spare healthy tissues expressing one, but not both, of the antigens targeted by the bispecific ADC.

Collaboration and License Agreements

Merck Collaboration

In July 2018, we entered into an Exclusive Patent License and Research Collaboration Agreement (the “2018 Merck Agreement”) with Merck to jointly develop up to three research programs focusing on cytokine derivatives for cancer and autoimmune disorders.

Under the 2018 Merck Agreement, we received from Merck a non-refundable, non-creditable, upfront payment of $60.0 million in August 2018 for access to our technology and the identification and preclinical research and development of two target programs, with an option for Merck to engage us to continue these activities for a third program upon the payment of an additional amount. The option to expand activities to a third program expired in January 2021. In December 2021, Merck did not extend the research term for the second research program of the collaboration and that research program reverted to us. The first program of the collaboration is focused on MK-1484, a distinct cytokine derivative molecule for the treatment of cancer.

In March 2020, Merck exercised its option to extend the research term of the collaboration’s first cytokine-derivative program by one year, which, pursuant to the terms of the 2018 Merck Agreement, triggered a payment

of $5.0 million to us. In the second quarter of 2021, we earned a $15.0 million contingent payment for the initiation by Merck of the first IND-enabling toxicology study under the first cytokine-derivative program in the collaboration. In September 2021, Merck agreed to extend the research term of this program for an additional two years to facilitate completion of preclinical research and development activities for a second candidate molecule in the program, which has a novel design and approach. In connection with the extension, we received an initial $2.5 million payment. Merck decided not to pursue further development of a second molecule under the first cytokine-derivative program of the collaboration and therefore allowed the option to extend the period for nomination of additional clinical candidates to expire in June 2022.

In July 2022, the first patient was dosed with MK-1484 in a Phase 1 study. As a result of this achievement, we received a $10.0 million contingent payment from Merck.

In August 2020, we entered into a Pre-Clinical and Clinical Supply Agreement with Merck, wherein Merck requested us to provide manufacturing services, including clinical product supply, upon completion of the research programs under the 2018 Merck Agreement. The consideration for the services is based on an agreed-upon level of FTE personnel effort and related reimbursement rate in addition to agreed-upon pricing for the clinical product supply.

We are also eligible to receive aggregate contingent payments of up to approximately $0.5 billion for the target program selected by Merck, assuming the development and sale of the related therapeutic candidate and all possible indications identified under the collaboration. If one or more products from the target program is developed for non-oncology or a single indication, we will be eligible for reduced aggregate milestone payments. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from mid-single digit to low teen percentages on the worldwide sales of any commercial products that may result from the collaboration.

Merck may terminate the 2018 Merck Agreement at any time with 60 days’ prior written notice. Either we or Merck has the right to terminate the 2018 Merck Agreement based on the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy.

BMS Collaboration

In November 2019, BMS acquired Celgene, and Celgene became a wholly owned subsidiary of BMS. In connection with such acquisition, BMS assumed the rights and obligations of the 2014 Celgene Agreement, 2017 Celgene Agreement and 2018 Celgene Master Services Agreement. Throughout this Annual Report, we refer to Celgene as BMS and our agreements with Celgene as the BMS Agreement and the 2018 BMS Master Services Agreement.

In September 2014, we signed a Collaboration and License Agreement with BMS to discover and develop bispecific antibodies and/or ADCs, focused primarily on the field of immuno-oncology, using our proprietary integrated cell-free protein synthesis platform, XpressCF®. In August 2017, we entered into an amended and restated collaboration and license agreement with BMS to refocus the collaboration on four programs that were advancing through preclinical development, including an ADC program targeting B cell maturation antigen, or the BCMA ADC, CC-99712.

Upon signing the BMS Agreement in 2014, we received an upfront, nonrefundable payment totaling $83.1 million.

In March 2015, we received a $15.0 million contingent payment from BMS that provided BMS a right to access certain of our technology for use in conjunction with certain BMS intellectual property. In June 2016, we received a $25.0 million milestone upon completion of certain preclinical activities. Additionally, in June 2016, we earned a $10.0 million substantive milestone for certain manufacturing accomplishments.

In August 2017, we received an option fee payment of $12.5 million from BMS. In each of October 2017 and December 2018, we received a $10.0 million milestone for certain manufacturing accomplishments.

In 2019, BMS initiated the Phase 1 clinical trial for CC-99712, a BCMA ADC which was discovered and is being manufactured by us. In the second half of 2021, BMS expanded their Phase 1 trial to include combination treatment with a gamma secretase inhibitor. BMS has worldwide development and commercialization rights with respect to CC-99712. We will continue to be responsible for clinical supply manufacturing and certain development services for the BCMA ADC and are eligible to receive from BMS aggregate development and regulatory contingent payments of up to $275.0 million, if approved in multiple indications, and tiered royalties ranging from mid to high single digit percentages on worldwide sales of any resulting commercial products.

In March 2018, we entered into a Master Development and Clinical Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the 2018 BMS Master Services Agreement, with BMS, wherein BMS requested us to provide development, manufacturing and supply chain management services, including clinical product supply. The consideration for the services is based on an agreed-upon level of FTE personnel effort and related reimbursement rate in addition to agreed-upon pricing for clinical product supply for use in Phase 1 clinical trials.

BMS may terminate the BMS Agreement at any time with 120 days’ prior written notice. Either we or BMS has the right to terminate the BMS Agreement based on the other party’s uncured material breach, challenge of the validity and enforceability of intellectual property, or bankruptcy.

EMD Serono Collaboration

We signed a Collaboration Agreement and a License Agreement with EMD Serono in May 2014 and September 2014, respectively, which were entered into in contemplation of each other. The Collaboration Agreement was subsumed into the License Agreement (the “MDA Agreement”), which agreement is to develop ADCs for multiple cancer targets. Our collaboration with EMD Serono has yielded a novel bispecific ADC product candidate targeting EGFR and MUC1, known as M1231, for which an IND submission was filed in the second half of 2020. Recently, EMD Serono decided to close the Phase 1a trial of M1231 in patients with solid tumors and not initiate a previously planned expansion study. EMD Serono stated that the decision was based on strategic portfolio considerations.

Upon signing the Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront, nonrefundable, non-creditable payment totaling $10.0 million. Upon signing the MDA Agreement, we received an additional upfront, nonrefundable, non-creditable payment totaling $10.0 million and will receive financial support for research and development services to be provided by us, based on an agreed-upon level of FTE personnel effort and related reimbursement rate. Under a supply agreement with EMD Serono, we provide them with product candidate materials for IND-enabling and Phase 1 clinical studies. The consideration for any related services is based on an agreed-upon level of FTE personnel effort and related reimbursement rate in addition to agreed-upon pricing for providing the materials.

We are eligible to receive up to $52.5 million for M1231 under the MDA Agreement, primarily from pre-commercial contingent payments, of which we have earned and received a $1.5 million payment, a $1.0 million payment, and a $2.0 million payment in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from low-to-mid single digit percentages, along with certain additional one-time royalties, on worldwide sales of any commercial products that may result from the MDA Agreement. The MDA Agreement term expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis. Upon expiration, EMD Serono will have a fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable non-exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain of our intellectual property rights. EMD Serono may terminate the MDA Agreement at any time with 90 days’ prior written notice or upon the inability of us to provide EMD Serono access to a specified number of cancer drug targets. Either we or EMD Serono has the right to terminate the MDA Agreement based on the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy.

Astellas Agreement

In June 2022, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Astellas, or the Astellas Agreement, for the development of immunostimulatory antibody-drug conjugates for up to three biological targets, to be identified by Astellas. We will conduct research and pre-clinical development of any compound (as designated by Astellas) in each of the three programs in accordance with the terms of a research plan between us and Astellas. Astellas will have an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize any such designated compound, subject to our rights to participate in cost and profit sharing in the United States, as described below.

Pursuant to the Astellas Agreement, we received from Astellas a one-time, nonrefundable, non-creditable, upfront payment of $90.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2022.

We are also eligible to receive up to $422.5 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones for each product candidate, and tiered royalties ranging from low double-digit to mid-teen percentages on worldwide sales of any commercial products that may result from the collaboration, subject to customary deductions under certain circumstances. We can also elect to convert any product candidate into a cost and profit-sharing arrangement, for the United States only. In the event we make such election, we will share commercialization costs and profits relating to such product candidate equally with Astellas in the United States, and no royalties will be due from Astellas for net sales of such product candidates in the United States.

The Astellas Agreement contains customary provisions for termination, including by Astellas for convenience upon 30 days’ written notice and by either party for cause, including for material breach (subject to cure). We have certain reversion rights as to product candidates in connection with certain termination events.

Stanford License

In October 2007, we entered into an Amended and Restated Exclusive Agreement, or the Stanford License, with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford), that grants us an exclusive license, with the right to sublicense, under the patent rights owned by Stanford covering certain technology rights related to our XpressCF® expression system.

We were required to make milestone payments to Stanford of approximately $930,000 on the accomplishment of certain development and regulatory milestones, which total amount has been paid as of December 31, 2021. No additional milestone payments are due under the Stanford License. Additionally, we owe Stanford annual license maintenance fees of $75,000, which may be creditable against earned royalties in such year and are required to reimburse Stanford for ongoing patent-related costs. We are also required to pay to Stanford low single digit royalties on net sales and to share any sublicensing income received related to the licensed technology. We may terminate the agreement at any time upon 30 days’ written notice.

Vaxcyte (formerly known as SutroVax) Relationship

In 2013, we and Johnson & Johnson Innovation, through the Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation, provided initial co-funding for Vaxcyte, Inc., or Vaxcyte, with which we have a license agreement, a supply agreement and an option agreement related to certain development and manufacturing rights. Under the license agreement, Vaxcyte has the right to use the XpressCF® and XpressCF+®platforms to discover and develop vaccine candidates for the treatment or prophylaxis of infectious diseases. The lead program for Vaxcyte is VAX-24, its 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine candidate. Vaxcyte is responsible for performing all research and development activities, and we provide technical support and supply XtractCF® and other materials to Vaxcyte. In the first quarter of 2022, Vaxcyte announced initiation of a Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study of VAX-24, under investigation for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults and announced in October 2022 positive topline data from such study in adults aged 18-64.

In May 2018, we entered into a Supply Agreement with Vaxcyte, wherein Vaxcyte engaged us to supply extracts and custom reagents, as requested by Vaxcyte. The pricing is based on an agreed upon cost plus arrangement.

In December 2022, we entered into a letter agreement (the “Vaxcyte Agreement”) with Vaxcyte and granted Vaxcyte an option to obtain development and manufacturing rights for XtractCF® that, when exercised, would grant Vaxcyte the right to make and source our cell-free extract for research, development, and manufacture of vaccines for the prophylaxis and treatment of infectious disease.

Pursuant to the Vaxcyte Agreement, we received a one-time, nonrefundable, non-creditable, upfront payment of $10.0 million in cash, and 167,780 shares of Vaxcyte common stock with a fair value of $7.5 million in December 2022. We will receive an additional nonrefundable, non-creditable payment of $5.0 million after we and Vaxcyte mutually agree in writing upon the Form Definitive Agreement that will become effective upon Vaxcyte’s exercise of the option. In the event that Vaxcyte elects to exercise the option, Vaxcyte will pay us $75.0 million in cash in two installments, and upon the occurrence of certain regulatory milestones, certain additional milestone

payments totaling up to $60.0 million. In the event that Vaxcyte undergoes a change of control, and subsequently exercises the option, a substantial majority of the milestone payments are accelerated.

We hold 0.7 million shares of common stock of Vaxcyte and are eligible for four percent royalties on worldwide net sales of any vaccine candidates for human health use under the license agreement. Also, we retain the right to discover and develop vaccines for the treatment or prophylaxis of any disease that is not caused by an infectious pathogen, including cancer.

Vaxcyte has the right to terminate the Vaxcyte license agreement for convenience upon prior written notice. Either party may terminate for the other party’s material uncured breach under certain circumstances.

Tasly Relationship

In December 2021, we entered into the Tasly License Agreement with Tasly to grant an exclusive license to develop and commercialize STRO-002 in Greater China. Tasly will pursue the clinical development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of STRO-002 in multiple indications, including ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and other indications in Greater China. We retained development and commercial rights of STRO-002 globally outside of Greater China, including the United States.

Under the Tasly License Agreement, Tasly was obligated to make an initial payment to us of $40.0 million, with additional potential payments totaling up to $345.0 million related to development, regulatory and commercialization contingent payments and milestones. We will provide STRO-002 to Tasly under appropriate clinical and commercial supply service agreements. Upon commercialization, we will receive tiered royalties, ranging from low- to mid-teen percentages based on annual net sales of STRO-002 in Greater China for at least ten years following the first commercial sale of STRO-002 in Greater China. In February 2022, Tasly indicated that it would like to discuss and renegotiate the terms of the Tasly License Agreement.

In April 2022, we entered amendment No. 1, or the Tasly Amendment, to the Tasly License Agreement. Pursuant to the Tasly Amendment, the initial nonrefundable upfront payment due by Tasly was amended to $25.0 million, and a $15.0 million payment will become payable to us upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones. The Tasly Amendment also added an additional regulatory milestone payment to the Tasly License Agreement, providing additional potential payments totaling up to $350.0 million related to development, regulatory and commercialization milestones, beyond the payments described above, and made certain other ministerial edits.

Tasly has the right to terminate the Tasly License Agreement for convenience or other reasons specified in the Tasly License Agreement, upon prior written notice.

BioNova Relationship

In October 2021, we entered into the BioNova Option Agreement to confer BioNova the right to obtain exclusive rights to develop and commercialize STRO-001 in Greater China and amended the BioNova Option Agreement with BioNova in the first quarter of 2023. BioNova will pursue the clinical development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of STRO-001 in multiple indications, including NHL, multiple myeloma, and leukemia in the licensed territory. We retain development and commercial rights of STRO-001 globally outside of Greater China, including the United States.

Under the BioNova Option Agreement, BioNova paid the Company an initial licensing option payment of $4.0 million, with potential payments totaling up to $199.0 million related to the initial payment, option exercise, development, regulatory, and commercial milestones, including the right to exercise the license option for a payment of $12.0 million. We will provide STRO-001 to BioNova under appropriate clinical and commercial supply service agreements. Upon commercialization, we will receive tiered royalties ranging from low- to mid-teen percentages based on annual net sales of STRO-001 in Greater China for at least ten years following the first commercial sale of STRO-001 in Greater China.

BioNova has the right to terminate the BioNova Option Agreement for convenience or other reasons specified in the BioNova Option Agreement, upon prior written notice.

Manufacturing

We have significant expertise in the production of therapeutic biologics. Our proprietary XpressCF® platform is a cell-free protein synthesis technology that enables rapid and systematic process development, streamlined scale-up and GMP manufacturing.

Extract and Reagents

We manufacture our cell-free extract and related reagents in our GMP manufacturing facility in San Carlos, California for our clinical trials and supply commitments. We have identified a contract manufacturing organization, or CMO, to serve as our strategic partner for the production of cell-free extract and have initiated technology transfer to this CMO. Similarly, we have identified a CMO to produce custom reagents used in our cell-free production and have initiated this technology transfer as well. We expect both technology transfers to be substantially complete in 2023.

Drug Substance and Drug Product

Our process development and manufacturing strategies are tailored to rapidly advance our product candidates, including the use of a supply chain of established CMOs to ensure successful execution. The production of antibodies will be done by either us or CMOs, depending on our internal cGMP production capacity. We have identified a CMO to produce the antibody component of our products at scale and technology transfer of the manufacturing process is underway. The production of all other necessary elements for the manufacture of our ADC product candidates, and the final manufacture of the ADC drug product, will be handled entirely by CMOs. Our XpressCF+® platform has been successfully used for manufacturing several antibodies containing non-natural amino acids and requires minimal process optimization to support early clinical phase manufacturing. We utilize industry established production steps for the purification of our antibodies. The CMOs we have selected have strong track records in cGMP manufacturing with expertise in clinical or commercial drug manufacturing for cytotoxic agents, large scale manufacture of antibodies, conjugation and fill-finish of therapeutic biologics. All activities from cell-free extract production to formulated drug product are performed to maintain aggressive timelines and minimize delays.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, and the immuno-oncology subsector, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition, and strong defense of intellectual property. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will have to compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. While we believe that our proprietary XpressCF® platform and scientific expertise in the field of biologics and immuno-oncology provide us with competitive advantages, a wide variety of institutions, including large biopharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies, academic research departments and public and private research institutions, are actively developing potentially competitive products and technologies. We face substantial competition from biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies developing products in immuno-oncology. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnological and therapeutics companies, including companies focused on cancer immunotherapies, such as AstraZeneca PLC, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, Roche Holding Ltd, Sanofi S.A., and companies focused on ADCs, such as BMS, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eisai, Co., Ltd., ImmunoGen, Inc., Eli Lilly & Company, Pfizer, Exelixis, Inc., Seagen, Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Genentech, Inc., or Genentech, Gilead Sciences Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., and ADC Therapeutics SA, as well as numerous small companies. Moreover, we also compete with current and future therapeutics developed at universities and other research institutions.

If our most advanced product candidates are approved, they will compete with a range of therapeutic treatments that are either in development or currently marketed. Currently marketed oncology therapeutics include a range of biologic modalities with the top selling products by class spanning tumor targeting monoclonal antibodies, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Darzalex; to ADCs, such as Genentech’s Kadcyla; to immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as Merck’s Keytruda; to T cell-engager immunotherapies, such as Amgen, Inc.’s Blincyto; and to CAR-T cell therapies, such as Gilead’s Yescarta. In addition, numerous compounds are in clinical development for cancer treatment. The clinical development pipeline for cancer includes small molecules, antibodies, vaccines, cell therapies and immunotherapies from a variety of companies and institutions.

We also face substantial competition from biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies developing products with FolRα-targeted therapies, including naked antibodies, small molecule drug conjugates, ADCs, and T cell retargeting molecules. The most advanced clinically active agent targeting FolRα to date has been Immunogen’s ELAHERE™ (mirvetuximab soravtansine IMGN853), an ADC composed of a FolRα-binding antibody linked to the tubulin-disrupting maytansinoid, DM4, via a cleavable linker. BMS and Eisai, are also co-developing a FolRα-targeted ADC for the treatment of cancers, including ovarian cancers, identified as MORAb-202.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales, supply and human resources or experience than we have. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance, rendering our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. Accelerated merger and acquisition activity in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity could be substantially limited in the event that our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or less expensive than our comparable products. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of the entry of our products. We believe the factors determining the success of our programs will be the efficacy, safety and convenience of our product candidates.

Reimbursement

The regulations that govern pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription biopharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, a drug company can obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of that product.

A drug company’s ability to commercialize any products successfully will also depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if one or more products are successfully brought to the market, these products may not be considered cost-effective, and the amount reimbursed for such products may be insufficient to allow them to be sold on a competitive basis. Increasingly, third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are seeking to reduce the prices charged or the amounts reimbursed for biopharmaceutical products.

Significant delays can occur in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs or therapeutic biologics, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or therapeutic biologic is approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug or therapeutic biologic will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers a drug company’s costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution.

Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs or therapeutic biologics, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover a drug company’s costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may be based on payments allowed for lower cost drugs or therapeutic biologics that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs or therapeutic biologics may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs or therapeutic biologics from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval processes apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover, but is not limited to, our technology platforms, our product candidates, and components thereof, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, our proprietary reagents and assays, and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We also rely on trade secret protection of our confidential information and know-how relating to our proprietary technology, platforms, and product candidates, continuing innovation, and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in our XpressCF® platform and product candidates. We expect to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, patent term adjustment and patent term extensions when available. 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 or controlled by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patents; to defend against and challenge the assertion by third parties of their purported intellectual property rights; and to operate without the unauthorized infringement 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 substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to our XpressCF® platform technology, platform, and product candidates. Our patent portfolio as of December 31, 2022, contained 26 U.S. issued patents and 235 patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions, including Europe, China, Japan, Australia and Singapore, and 42 U.S. pending applications, as well as 97 patent applications pending in ex-U.S. jurisdictions, including Europe, China, Japan, Australia and Singapore owned solely by us. These patents and patent applications include claims relating to:

Our issued patents, and any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, in our solely owned patent portfolio are expected to expire between January 2030 and November 2043, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

In addition, we have exclusively licensed the following patent portfolio from Stanford: 10 U.S. issued patents and 35 patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions, including Europe, China, Canada, India, Australia, South Korea, Eurasia and Singapore. This patent portfolio includes claims relating to methods related to in vitro protein synthesis that we use in our XpressCF® platform when discovering, developing and manufacturing our product candidates.

Remaining patents in our patent portfolio licensed from Stanford are expected to expire between August 2023 and January 2028, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

As for the XpressCF® platform, product candidates and processes we develop and commercialize, in the normal course of business, we intend to pursue, where appropriate, patent protection or trade secret protection relating to compositions, methods of manufacture, assay methods, methods of use, treatment of indications, dosing and formulations. We may also pursue patent protection with respect to product development processes and technology.

The following table describes the material patents and patent applications owned or licensed by us.

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 the European Union and in additional countries where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial, including but not limited to any or all of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. However, the term of United States patents may be extended for delays incurred due to compliance with the FDA requirements or by delays encountered during prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO. For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved drugs of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our biopharmaceutical product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates. We intend to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Our currently issued patents will likely expire on dates ranging from 2030 to 2039, unless we receive patent term extension or patent term adjustment, or both. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2033 to 2043, unless we receive patent term extension or patent term adjustment, or both. 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.

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of immunotherapy has emerged in the United States. The patent situation outside of the United States is even more uncertain. Changes in the patent laws and rules, either by legislation, judicial decisions, or regulatory 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. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending, 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 platforms and product candidates and the methods used to manufacture those platforms and product candidates. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our platform’s product candidates. However, 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 XpressCF® technology, platforms and 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 platforms or product candidates or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our XpressCF® technology, platforms, and 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 XpressCF® technology, platforms, and 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. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms, and product candidates, please see the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

We intend to file applications for trademark registrations in connection with our product candidates in various jurisdictions, including the United States. We have filed for trademark protection of the Sutro Biopharma marks, the XpressCF® mark and the XpressCF+® mark with the USPTO. Additionally, we filed for trademark protection of the ProteinSARTM mark, XpressPDF® mark, XpressRNAP® mark, XpressRS® mark, XpresstRNA® mark and

XtractCF® mark with the USPTO. XpressCF® refers to our cell-free protein synthesis technology as a whole, and XpressCF+® refers specifically to cell-free protein synthesis incorporating one or more non-natural amino acids. The Sutro Biopharma marks were registered by the USPTO in 2014 and 2018, the XpressCF® mark was registered by the USPTO in 2017, and XpressCF+® mark was registered by the USPTO in 2017. The XpressRNAP® mark, the XpressRS® mark, and the XpresstRNA® mark were registered in the USPTO in 2021. The XpressPDF® mark and the XtractCF® mark were registered in the USPTO in 2022.

We also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. Although we take steps to protect our confidential and proprietary information as trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In many cases our confidentiality and other agreements with consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors require them to assign or grant us licenses to inventions they invent as a result of the work or services they render under such agreements or grant us an option to negotiate a license to use such inventions.

Information Security

We 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. Our Infosec Governance Committee, comprising senior executives and facilities and information technology employees, and under the supervision of our Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, is responsible for designing, implementing, monitoring and improving the security of our confidential and/or proprietary information. We conduct regular audits of our information security systems, including our on-site and cloud-based information systems and strive to continuously improve the robustness of our security and information recovery systems in the event of, for example, a cyberattack or natural disaster that compromises our data integrity. In addition, we conduct regular training and testing of our employees to identify, and report cyberattacks, including phishing and other forms of social engineering. We also maintain a limited insurance policy against cyberattacks that may provide a measure of compensation in the event that we are harmed by an information security attack. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, our security measures have been breached in the past and may again be breached in the future, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. 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.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling,

promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Biological products used for the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDC Act, except the section of the FDC Act which governs the approval of new drug applications, or NDAs. Biological products are approved for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, via a Biologics License Application, or BLA. However, the application process and requirements for approval of BLAs are very similar to those for NDAs, and biologics are associated with similar approval risks and costs as drugs. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending BLAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Biological product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the biologic for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational biologic to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The trial protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the biologic into healthy human subjects or patients, the product is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. In oncology clinical trials, efficacy endpoints are also often explored in Phase 1. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug or biologic for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug or biologic and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. In some instances, trial phases may be truncated or combined into one or more combined-phase or adaptive design trials. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the biologic. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in certain oncological conditions where the trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access.

After completion of the required clinical testing, a BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The BLA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. The submission of most BLAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently exceeding $3,242,000 for Fiscal Year 2023. The applicant under an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, currently exceeding $393,000 per prescription drug product for Fiscal Year 2023. These fees are typically increased annually. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs. Most such applications for standard review biologic products are reviewed within 10 months of the date the FDA files the BLA; most applications for priority review biologics are reviewed within six months of the date the FDA files the BLA. Priority review can be applied to a biologic that the FDA determines has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel biologic products, or biologic products that 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. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biologic product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, is satisfactory and the BLA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the biologic is safe, pure, potent and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the biologic outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy.

Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained, or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs.

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

The FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of biologics that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new biologic candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a fast track biologic concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the biologic candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to engage in more frequent interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s BLA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the BLA is submitted. Additionally, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, the FDA may approve a biologic for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A biologic candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval trials, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing trials, will allow the FDA to withdraw the biologic from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for biologic candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, was recently enacted, which included provisions related to the accelerated approval pathway. Pursuant to FDORA, the FDA is authorized to require a post-approval study to be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period following approval. FDORA also requires the FDA to specify conditions of any required post-approval study, which may include milestones such as a target date of study completion and requires sponsors to submit progress reports for required post-approval studies and any conditions required by the FDA not later than 180 days following approval and not less frequently than every 180 days thereafter until completion or termination of the study. FDORA enables the FDA to initiate enforcement action for the failure to conduct with due diligence a required post-approval study, including a failure to meet any required conditions specified by the FDA or to submit timely reports.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to biological products intended to treat a rare disease or condition—generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a product available in the United States for such 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 generic identity of the biological product 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. The first BLA applicant to receive FDA approval for a product with particular principal molecular structural features to treat a particular disease with FDA orphan drug designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. A product is clinically superior if it is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the case of a biological product, the same drug is a drug that contains the same principal molecular features, Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biological product

for the same disease or condition, or the same biological product for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA user fee.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial are then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, BLAs or supplements to BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except a product with a new active ingredient that is molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target determined by FDA to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

Additional Controls for Biologics

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 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 in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of products 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 may also 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. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, biological product manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Biologic manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects' entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

A biologic product may rely upon an in vitro companion diagnostic for use in selecting the patients that will respond to a therapy. If an in vitro diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of the therapeutic product, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic at the same time that FDA approves the therapeutic product.

Pursuing FDA approval of an in vitro companion diagnostic usually would require a pre-market approval, or PMA, for that diagnostic. Based on a final FDA guidance document, and the FDA’s past treatment of companion diagnostics, the FDA will likely require PMA approval of an in vitro companion diagnostics to identify patient populations suitable for a cancer therapy. The review of these in vitro companion diagnostics involves coordination of review by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Approval of a companion diagnostic is generally required at the time of new drug approval.

The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and nonclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. The applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness, including information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee, which exceeds $441,000 for most PMAs for Fiscal Year 2023. In addition, PMAs for devices must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, the applicant must demonstrate that the diagnostic produces reproducible results between multiple users at multiple laboratories. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.

PMA approval is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time consuming to generate and that can substantially delay or prevent approval. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also register with FDA and list their devices. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA.

Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions: warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, civil or criminal penalties, recall or seizure of current or future products, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production, denial of submissions for new products, or withdrawal of PMA approvals.

Other Healthcare Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain general business and marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include anti-kickback statutes, false claims statutes and other healthcare laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed healthcare programs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively, the ACA, amended the intent element of the federal statute so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. This includes claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses, such as Medicaid, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off the Federal Supply Schedule. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Additionally, the ACA amended the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a violation of that statute can serve as a basis for liability under the federal False Claims Act. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order a receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular supplier, and the additional federal criminal statutes created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

In addition, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, imposes obligations on certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the storage, use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and require notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information.

Further, pursuant to the ACA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, has issued a final rule that requires manufacturers of prescription drugs to collect and report information on certain payments or transfers of value to physicians, physician assistants, certain types of advanced practice nurses and teaching hospitals, as well as investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reports must be submitted on an annual basis and the reported data are posted in searchable form on a public website on an annual basis. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and to report gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases. In addition, certain states require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Additional jurisdictions, such as the City of Chicago and the District of Columbia, require pharmaceutical sales representatives to be licensed and meet continuing education requirements. Certain states and local jurisdictions also require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties.

Efforts to ensure that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. If a drug company’s operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, it may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of its operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations and reputational harm. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action for an alleged or suspected violation can cause a drug company to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business, even if such action is successfully defended.

Healthcare Reform

Healthcare reforms that have been adopted, and that may be adopted in the future, could result in further reductions in coverage and levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, increases in rebates payable under U.S. government rebate programs and additional downward pressure on pharmaceutical product prices. On September 9, 2021, the Biden administration published a wide-ranging list of policy proposals, most of which would need to be carried out by Congress, to reduce drug prices and drug payment. Healthcare reform proposals recently culminated in the enactment of Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which will, among other things, allow the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D (excluding drugs and biologics that are designated and approved for only one rare disease or condition), although only high-expenditure single-source biologics that have been approved for at least 11 years (7 years for drugs) can be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. The negotiated prices, which will first become effective in 2026, will be capped at a statutory ceiling price. Beginning in October 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 2023 for Medicare Part B, the IRA will also penalize drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part D and Part B drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The IRA will also eliminate, beginning in 2025, the coverage gap under Medicare Part D by significantly lowering the enrollee maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum, and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA also extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is unclear to what extent other statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had 278 full-time employees and 17 full-time contract employees. Of these employees, 72 have an M.D. or a Ph.D. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good.

We recognize that attracting, motivating, and retaining talent at all levels is vital to continuing our success. We invest in our employees in many ways, including through high-quality benefits and various health and wellness initiatives and offer competitive compensation packages (base salary and incentive plans), ensuring fairness in internal compensation practices. The principal purposes of our incentive plans (bonus and equity) are to provide retention incentives that align with the long-term interests of our stakeholders and stockholders.

To further engage and incentivize our workforce, we also offer a range of opportunities to support professional development and growth. We support ongoing education by providing an appropriate level of reimbursement for courses which are related to an individual’s current or future position, we support our scientific team through encouraging their in-person and/or virtual attendance at conferences and symposia which further their development and we have a robust internal transfer practice to engage our current talent in growth opportunities within and outside of their functional areas. We embarked upon a Company-wide leadership development program which offered the opportunity for every employee to continue to build upon their learning. For our talent pipeline assessment and development, we work closely with individual scientific and business functional leaders to identify our high-performing and high-potential employees, by conducting a company-wide talent assessment and calibration. This assessment is completed annually to ensure we tie together our incentives, development, and recognition to retain and attract the people we need to drive our success.

We provide our team with ongoing resources aimed at both mental and physical health. We work closely with our Employee Assistance Plan which provides important mental health services and resources. We have a health and wellness initiative which encourages healthy behaviors aimed at creating positive life-long habits. We have a culture of collaboration and collaborative principles which we are intentional about fostering. Our initiatives on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging aim to learn, listen and act in support of these principles. We are actively involved in our community through, among other things, mentoring underserved communities and supporting the philanthropic interests of our employees and patients.

We also recognize that maintaining continuity of management in the event of the departure of one or more of our senior executives is critical to the continued success of the organization. To this end, we have prepared a formal written succession plan for our senior executives and to provide guidance for the next generation of our leaders to ensure an orderly and smooth transition in the event of an executive departure. While senior management is primarily responsible for developing our succession plan, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors (with respect to the CEO) and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors (with respect to other executives) oversee and guide our process and thinking.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in April 2003 under the name Fundamental Applied Biology, Inc. We subsequently changed our name to Sutro Biopharma, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 111 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco, California 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 881- 6500. Our website address is www.sutrobio.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this report.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. The SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including us, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that we file with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Copies of each of our filings with the SEC can also be viewed and downloaded free of charge at our website, ir.sutrobio.com, after the reports and amendments are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before making your decision to invest in shares of our common stock, you should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this annual report, including our financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that affect us. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed below will not occur. These events could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If that were to happen, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale. We have a history of significant losses, expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability, which could result in a decline in the market value of our common stock.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history on which to base your investment decision. Biotechnology product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk.

To date, we have enrolled a limited number of patients in our initial clinical trials, have no products approved for commercial sale, have not generated any revenue from commercial product sales and, as of December 31, 2022, had an accumulated deficit of $452.6 million. For the years ended December 31, 2022, and December 31, 2021, our net loss was $119.2 million and $105.5 million, respectively. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. In addition, our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, or foreign regulatory agencies, to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those studies and clinical trials that we currently anticipate conducting for our product candidates, or if there are any delays in our or our partners completing clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates. Our technologies and product candidates are in early stages of development, and we are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of product candidates based on novel technologies. In addition, we have limited experience as a clinical stage company and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biotechnology industry. Furthermore, we do not expect to generate any revenue from commercial product sales for the foreseeable future, and we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future due to the cost of research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials and the regulatory approval process for our product candidates. We expect our net losses to increase substantially as we progress further into clinical development of our lead programs and create additional infrastructure to support operations as a public company. However, the amount of our future losses is uncertain. We may never generate revenues from the commercial sale of our or our collaborators’ products. Our ability to achieve profitability, if ever, will depend on, among other things, our, or our existing or future collaborators’, successful development of product candidates, evaluating the related commercial opportunities, obtaining regulatory approvals to market and commercialize product candidates, manufacturing any approved products on commercially reasonable terms, establishing a sales and marketing organization or suitable third-party alternatives for any approved product, and raising sufficient funds to finance business activities. If we, or our existing or future collaborators, are unable to develop our technologies and commercialize one or more of our product candidates or if sales revenue from any product candidate that receives approval is insufficient, we will not achieve profitability, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods.

We will need substantial additional funds to advance development of our product candidates. This additional financing may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations. Continued unfavorable conditions in the capital markets may pose difficulties to us in accessing additional capital on reasonable, or even any, terms to continue our product and platform development or other operations. In addition, market volatility, high levels of inflation and interest rate fluctuations may increase our cost of capital or otherwise restrict our access to potential sources of future liquidity.

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital-intensive. If our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need substantial additional funds to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities. We have used substantial funds to develop our technology and product candidates and will require significant funds to conduct further research and development and preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to manufacture extract and products, if any, which may be approved for commercial sale, to establish marketing and sales capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, and to provide support to our collaborators in the development of their products. In addition, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

Since our inception, we have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in research and development activities for our two proprietary clinical-stage product candidates luvelta and STRO-001, and the development of our technology platform, including our in-house manufacturing capabilities. Clinical trials for our product candidates have required substantial funds to date and will continue to require substantial funds to complete. As of December 31, 2022, we had $302.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We expect to incur substantial expenditures in the foreseeable future as we seek to advance luvelta, STRO-001 and STRO-003 and any future product candidates through clinical development, manufacturing, the regulatory approval process and, if approved, commercial launch activities, as well as in connection with the continued development of our technology platform and manufacturing capabilities. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our available cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operations through at least the next 12 months. However, our future capital requirements and the period for which we expect our existing resources to support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our monthly spending levels vary based on new and ongoing research and development and other corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful research and development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any marketing and commercialization activities for approved products. The timing and amount of our operating expenditures will depend largely on:

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, we may have to delay, reduce or terminate our research and development programs and preclinical studies or clinical trials, limit strategic opportunities or undergo reductions in our workforce or other corporate restructuring activities. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. We cannot provide assurance that anticipated collaborator payments will, in fact, be received. We do not expect to realize revenue from sales of commercial products or royalties from licensed products in the foreseeable future, if at all, and, in no event, before our product candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization and successfully marketed. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through payments received under our collaboration and other associated agreements, the sale of equity securities and debt financing. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through additional collaborations and/or licensing agreements, public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities, or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, including the factors impacting potential interest rates for any debt financings. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

In addition, current macroeconomic conditions have caused turmoil in the banking sector. For example, on March 10, 2023, SVB one of our banking partners and lenders, was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, as receiver. Under the terms of our Loan and Security Agreement, we were required to keep substantially all of our cash and investments with SVB, the substantial majority of which was held in a custodial account with another institution, for which SVB Asset Management was the advisor. While we were afforded full access to our cash and investments with SVB on March 13, 2023, and have since amended our Loan and Security Agreement to provide us with greater cash management flexibility, we may be impacted by other disruptions to the U.S. banking system, including potential delays in our ability to transfer funds whether held with SVB or otherwise and in the short-term potential delays in making payments to vendors while new banking relationships are established.

Subject to limited exceptions, our Loan and Security Agreement with Oxford and SVB prohibits us from incurring indebtedness without the prior written consent of Oxford and SVB. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through licensing or collaboration arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Our current debt financing involves, and future debt financings, if available, are likely to involve, restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities receive any distribution of our corporate assets. Failure to obtain capital when needed on acceptable terms may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development and commercialization of our current or future product candidates, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our product candidates are in early stages of development and may fail in development or be impacted by competitive products or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability. If we or our collaborators are unable to complete development of or commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We have no products on the market and all of our product candidates for cancer therapy are in early stages of development. In particular, our most advanced product candidate, luvelta, is in the dose expansion phase of its Phase 1 clinical trials. Also, enrollment began in the second half of 2019 for patients in the Phase 1 clinical trial for CC-99712, a BCMA ADC candidate resulting from our BMS collaboration. Merck initiated patient dosing in a Phase 1 clinical trial for MK-1484 in July 2022, a product candidate resulting from our cytokine-derivative collaboration. In the first quarter of 2022, Vaxcyte announced that it had initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical proof-of-concept study of its lead product candidate, VAX-24, its 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine candidate, under investigation for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults, and announced initial data in October 2022. Additionally, we have programs that are in earlier stages of discovery and preclinical development and may never advance to clinical-stage development. Our ability to achieve and sustain profitability depends on obtaining regulatory approvals for and successfully commercializing our product candidates, either alone or with third parties, and we cannot guarantee you that we will ever obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial distribution of our product candidates, we or an existing or future collaborator must conduct extensive preclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in humans of our product candidates.

We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to modify existing or enter into new collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any issues that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, product candidates, including:

We or our collaborators’ inability to complete development of or commercialize our product candidates or significant delays in doing so due to one or more of these factors, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our business is dependent on the success of our product candidates based on our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and, in particular, our proprietary product candidates, luvelta, STRO-001 and STRO-003. Existing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be successful. If we are unable to commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and our proprietary product candidates, luvelta, STRO-001 and STRO-003. Our ability to generate commercial product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of luvelta, STRO-001 and STRO-003. We have not previously submitted a new drug application, or NDA, or a biologics license application, or BLA, to the FDA, or similar regulatory approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates both in the United States and in selected foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approvals generally is similar in other countries, in order to obtain separate regulatory approvals in other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Other countries also have their own regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, as well as pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we may be required to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval and to comply with ongoing regulations in these jurisdictions.

The success of luvelta, STRO-001 and STRO-003 and our other future product candidates will depend on many factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, we have in the past and may in the future create benchmark molecules for comparative purposes. For example, we have created a benchmark FolRα targeting antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, using conventional technology that results in a heterogeneous ADC mixture. We have compared luvelta to this benchmark molecule in multiple preclinical models. We believe the results of these tests help us understand how the therapeutic index of luvelta compares to competitors’ product candidates. However, we cannot be certain that any benchmark molecule that we create is the same as the molecule we are attempting to recreate, and the results of the tests comparing any such benchmark molecule to any other potential or current product candidate may be different than the actual results of a head-to-head test of any such other potential or current product candidate against a competitor molecule. Additional preclinical and clinical testing will be needed to evaluate the therapeutic index of our potential or current product candidates, and to understand their therapeutic potential relative to other product candidates in development. While we believe our ADCs may be superior to other investigative agents in development, without head-to-head comparative data, we will not be able to make claims of superiority to other products in our promotional materials, if our product candidates are approved.

If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we anticipate and project, the commercialization of our products may be delayed and our stock price may decline.

From time to time, we estimate the timing of the anticipated accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory, commercial and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are and will be based on numerous assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones as publicly announced, or at all, the commercialization of our products maybe delayed or never achieved and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

For example, even with the approval of vaccines for COVID-19, the COVID-19 pandemic may further delay enrollment in trials due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the pandemic, restrictions on travel, and some patients may be unwilling to enroll in our trials or be unable to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines or

travel restrictions impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services, which would delay our ability to conduct clinical trials or release clinical trial results.

Our approach to the discovery and development of our therapeutic treatments is based on novel technologies, including unprecedented Immunostimulatory Antibody Drug Conjugate, or iADC, and dual Antibody Drug Conjugates, or ADC2 technology, that are unproven and may not result in marketable products.

We are developing a pipeline of product candidates using our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. We believe that product candidates identified with our product discovery platform may offer an improved therapeutic approach by taking advantage of precision design and rapid empirical optimization, thereby reducing the dose-limiting toxic effects associated with existing products. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop product candidates based on our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms is ongoing. Further, the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing therapeutic treatments based on our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms is both preliminary and limited.

To date, we have tested our first clinical stage product candidates, luvelta and STRO-001, our partner BMS has tested CC-99712, our partner Merck has tested MK-1484, and our partner EMD Serono has tested M1231 in a limited number of clinical trial patients. In addition, Vaxcyte has tested its lead product candidate, VAX-24, a 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, in a limited number of clinical trial patients. We may ultimately discover that our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and any product candidates resulting therefrom do not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. XpressCF® product candidates may also be unable to remain stable in the human body for the period of time required for the drug to reach the target tissue or they may trigger immune responses that inhibit the ability of the product candidate to reach the target tissue or that cause adverse side effects in humans. We currently have only limited data, and no conclusive evidence, to suggest that we can introduce these necessary properties into these product candidates derived from our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. We may spend substantial funds attempting to introduce these properties and may never succeed in doing so. In addition, product candidates based on our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in patients than they do in laboratory studies. Although our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and certain product candidates have produced successful results in animal studies, they may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. Further, in our oncology clinical trials to date, we have used achievement of stable disease as evidence for disease control (stable disease, partial response or complete response) by our product candidates; however, the FDA does not view stable disease as an objective response for the purposes of FDA approval.

We presented updated data from the dose escalation portion of our STRO-001 Phase 1 trial in December 2020. As of October 30, 2020, most treatment emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2, with the most common grade 1-2 treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, of nausea, fatigue, chills, anemia, headache, dyspnea, abdominal pain, vomiting, decreased appetite and pyrexia, and no ocular or neuropathy toxicity signals have been observed. Two grade 3 and no grade 4 treatment emergent adverse events were observed, one instance each of anemia and dyspnea. Subsequent to a previously announced protocol amendment in 2019 requiring pre-treatment screening imaging for patients at risk for thromboses, no thromboembolic events have been observed. We have completed phase 1 dose escalation in the STRO-001 Phase 1 trial following identification of the maximum tolerated dose.

We presented updated data from the dose escalation portion of our luvelta Phase 1 trial in May 2021. Based on data from the trial through April 23, 2021, luvelta was generally well tolerated and was mostly associated with mild adverse events. Eighty-six percent (86%) of observed adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2. The most common Grade 3 and 4 TEAEs were reversible neutropenia (64%). Grade 3 arthralgia (13%), fatigue (10%), and neuropathy (8%) were observed and managed with standard medical treatment, including dose reductions or delays.

We released preliminary final results of the dose-expansion portion of our luvelta Phase 1 trial in January 2023. Safety signals from this portion of the trial were consistent with data from the dose-escalation cohort. Neutropenia was the leading TEAE that resulted in a treatment delay or dose reduction. Arthralgia was the second most common Grade 3+ TEAE and second most common TEAE leading to dose reduction. There were also limited observed cases of febrile neutropenia, including one Grade 5 event at the 5.2 mg/kg starting dose level and one Grade 3 event at the 4.3 mg/kg starting dose level. The trial protocol was subsequently updated to require dose reduction for Grade 4 neutropenia. We also initiated an exploratory cohort C to assess the safety of treatment with luvelta at 5.2 mg/kg in combination with prophylactic pegfilgrastim and presented preliminary data from ten patients from this cohort in January 2023. Early results from these initial 10 patients in cohort C, when

compared to patients who were not given prophylactic pegfilgrastim in the dose-expansion cohort at the 5.2 mg/kg dose (n=21) demonstrated substantial reductions in Grade 3+ neutropenia and instances of dose delays.

If product candidates based on our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms are unable to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy data to obtain marketing approval, we may never succeed in developing a marketable product, we may not become profitable and the value of our common stock will decline. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied product candidates. We are not aware of any company currently developing a therapeutic using our approach to ADC, iADC or ADC2 development and no regulatory authority has granted approval for such a therapeutic. We believe the FDA has limited experience with therapeutics in oncology or other disease areas developed in cell-free-based synthesis systems, which may increase the complexity, uncertainty and length of the regulatory approval process for our product candidates. For example, our XpressCF® ADC product candidates contain cleavable or non-cleavable linker-warhead combinations or novel warheads that may result in unforeseen events when administered in a human. We and our existing or future collaborators may never receive approval to market and commercialize any product candidate. Even if we or an existing or future collaborator obtains regulatory approval, the approval may be for targets, disease indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. We or an existing or future collaborator may be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. If the products resulting from our XpressCF® platform prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and pipeline would have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future clinical trials.

The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and preliminary results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict success in future clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. While certain relevant members of our company have significant clinical experience, we in general have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we, or future collaborators, believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial patients. In addition, results from compassionate use of our product candidates, such as luvelta to treat pediatric CFB/GLIS AML, my not be confirmed in Company-sponsored trials and/or may negatively impact the prospects for marketing approval for our product candidates. If we fail to receive positive results in clinical trials of our product candidates, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our most advanced product candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects would be negatively impacted.

Interim, top-line, or preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce 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 have publicly disclosed, and in the future will disclose, preliminary or top-line data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which are based on preliminary analyses of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. 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. Therefore, final results from the studies may differ from the top-line results initially reported, and the final results may indicate different conclusions once additional data have been evaluated. As such, top-line

data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive data, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the final results differ from the interim, top-line, or preliminary data, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and to commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which may negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Moreover, from time to time, we have publicly disclosed, and in the future may disclose, interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more data become available. Adverse differences between top-line, preliminary, or interim data, on the one hand, and final data, on the other, 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.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions, or analyses, or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could negatively affect the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate.

The market may not be receptive to our product candidates based on a novel therapeutic modality, and we may not generate any future revenue from the sale or licensing of product candidates.

Even if regulatory approval is obtained for a product candidate, we may not generate or sustain revenue from sales of the product due to factors such as whether the product can be sold at a competitive cost, competition in the therapeutic area(s) we have received or may receive approval for, and whether it will otherwise be accepted in the market. Historically, there have been concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of ADCs, and an ADC drug was voluntarily withdrawn from the market for an extended period of time. These historical concerns may negatively impact the perception market participants have on ADCs, including our product candidates. Additionally, the product candidates that we are developing are based on our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms, which are new technologies. Market participants with significant influence over acceptance of new treatments, such as physicians and third-party payors, may not adopt an ADC product, or a product or treatment based on our novel cell-free production technologies, and we may not be able to convince the medical community and third-party payors to accept and use, or to provide favorable reimbursement for, any product candidates developed by us or our existing or future collaborators. Market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on, among other factors:

Because our product candidates are based on new technology, we expect that they will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, our estimates regarding potential market size for any indication may be materially different from what we discover to exist at the time we commence commercialization, if any, for a product, which could result in significant changes in our business plan and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if any product candidate we commercialize fails to achieve market acceptance, it could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

iADC and ADC2 are novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time, risks and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval of these potential product candidates.

Certain of our preclinical product candidates are based on our proprietary iADC and ADC2 technology. Some of our future success depends on the successful development of this technology and products based on it. To our knowledge, no regulatory authority has granted approval to any person or entity, including us, to market and commercialize therapeutics using our novel and unprecedented iADC or ADC2 technology. We may never receive approval to market and commercialize any potential iADC or ADC2 product candidate.

If we uncover any previously unknown risks related to our iADC and ADC2 technology, or if we experience unanticipated or unsolvable problems or delays in developing our iADC or ADC2 product candidates, we may be unable to complete our preclinical studies and clinical trials, meet the obligations of our collaboration and license agreements or commercialize our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis. If serious adverse events or unacceptable side effects are observed in preclinical studies or clinical trials of a product candidate based on our iADC or ADC2 technology, or if iADCs or ADC2s were shown to have limited efficacy, our ability to develop other product candidates based on our iADC or ADC2 technology would be adversely affected.

We have entered, and may in the future seek to enter, into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidates using our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. If we fail to enter into such collaborations, or such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and resulting product candidates.

Since 2014, we have entered into collaborations with Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., or Merck, Celgene Corporation, or Celgene, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany (operating in the United States under the name “EMD Serono”, the biopharmaceutical business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany in the US), BioNova Pharmaceuticals Limited, or BioNova, and Tasly Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd, or Tasly, to develop and commercialize certain cancer and other therapeutics. Our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms have also supported a spin-out company, Vaxcyte Inc., focused on discovery and development of vaccines for the treatment and prophylaxis of infectious disease. In addition, we may in the future seek third-party collaborators for research, development and commercialization of other therapeutic technologies or product candidates. Biopharmaceutical companies are our prior and likely future collaborators for any marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements. With respect to our existing collaboration agreements, and what we expect will be the case with any future collaboration agreements, we have and would expect to have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Moreover, our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations involving our product candidates currently pose, and will continue to pose, the following risks to us:

As a result of the foregoing, our current and any future collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of our product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. Moreover, if a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated. Any failure to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates pursuant to our current or any future collaboration agreements could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

To date, no product developed on a cell-free manufacturing platform has received approval from the FDA, so the requirements for the manufacturing of products using our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms are uncertain.

We have invested in our own current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, compliant manufacturing facility in San Carlos, California. In this facility, we are developing and implementing novel, proprietary cell-free production technologies to supply our planned preclinical and clinical trials. However, before we may initiate a clinical trial or commercialize any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate to the FDA that the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for our product candidates meet applicable requirements, and in the European Union, or EU, a manufacturing authorization must be obtained from the appropriate EU regulatory authorities. The FDA has allowed Phase 1 clinical trial use of our product candidates luvelta and STRO-001, and our partner BMS’s CC-99712 product candidate, and our partner EMD Serono’s M1231 product candidate, and our partner Merck’s MK-1484 product candidate, portions of which are manufactured in our San Carlos manufacturing facility; however, because no product manufactured on a cell-free manufacturing platform has yet been approved in the United States, there is no manufacturing facility that has demonstrated the ability to comply with FDA requirements for later stage clinical development or commercialization, and, therefore, the time frame for demonstrating compliance to the FDA’s satisfaction is uncertain. Delays in establishing that our manufacturing process and facility comply with cGMPs or disruptions in our manufacturing processes, implementation of novel in-house technologies or scale-up activities, may delay or disrupt our development efforts.

We expect that development of our own manufacturing facility will provide us with enhanced control of material supply for preclinical studies, clinical trials and the commercial market, enable the more rapid implementation of process changes and allow for better long-term margins. However, we have limited experience as a company in establishing and operating a manufacturing facility and there exist only a small number of contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, with the experience necessary to manufacture our product candidates. We may have difficulty hiring experts for internal manufacturing or finding and maintaining relationships with external CMOs and, accordingly, our production capacity could be limited.

We have initiated technology transfers to enable large scale manufacture of extract and the reagents necessary to manufacture our products using our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. These large scale technology transfers may fail or be delayed, resulting in impacts to our development timelines and the costs associated with manufacturing our development products.

Our existing collaborations with Astellas, Merck, BMS, EMD Serono, Vaxcyte, BioNova and Tasly are important to our business. If our collaborators cease development efforts under our existing or future collaboration agreements, fail to fulfill their contract obligations, or if any of those agreements are terminated, these collaborations may fail to lead to commercial products and we may never receive milestone payments or future royalties under these agreements.

We have entered into collaborations with other biotechnology companies to develop or commercialize several of our product candidates, and such collaborations currently represent a significant portion of our product pipeline and discovery and preclinical programs. A substantial portion of our revenue to date has been derived from our existing collaboration agreements with Astellas, Merck, BMS, EMD Serono, Vaxcyte, BioNova, and Tasly, and a significant portion of our future revenue and cash resources is expected to be derived from these agreements or other similar agreements into which we may enter in the future. Revenue from research and development collaborations depends upon continuation of the collaborations, payments for research and development and other services and product supply, and the achievement of milestones, contingent payments and royalties, if any, derived from future products developed from our research. If we are unable to successfully advance the development of our product candidates, achieve milestones or earn contingent payments under our collaboration agreements, future revenue and cash resources will be substantially less than expected.

We are unable to predict the success of our collaborations and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic collaborations. Our collaborators have discretion in determining and directing the efforts and resources, including the ability to discontinue all efforts and resources, they apply to the development and, if approval is obtained, commercialization and marketing of the product candidates covered by such collaborations. As a result, our collaborators may elect to de-prioritize our programs, change their strategic focus or pursue alternative technologies in a manner that results in reduced, delayed or no revenue to us. For example, recently, EMD Serono decided to close the Phase 1a trial of M1231 in patients with solid tumors and not initiate a previously planned expansion study. EMD Serono stated that the decision was based on strategic portfolio considerations. BMS advanced a collaboration program, CC-99712, an ADC targeting B-cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, for the treatment of multiple myeloma, into a Phase 1 clinical trial in the third quarter of 2019. BMS has worldwide development and commercialization rights with respect to this BCMA ADC. Additionally, Merck initiated patient dosing in a Phase 1 clinical trial for MK-1484, a cytokine derivative of IL-2 discovered and developed under our collaboration, in July 2022. Merck has worldwide rights to MK-1484 and sole discretion in the clinical development and commercialization for this product candidate. In December 2021, Merck did not extend the research term for another target program of the collaboration and that program reverted to us. Our collaborators may have other marketed products and product candidates under collaboration with other companies, including some of our competitors, and their corporate objectives may not be consistent with our best interests. Our collaborators may also be unsuccessful in developing or commercializing our products. If our collaborations are unsuccessful, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected. Our collaborators may fail to live up to the terms of their agreements with us, which would require us to seek to enforce our agreements in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set forth therein. These procedures may require us to engage in litigation or arbitration to enforce our rights, which can be expensive, time-consuming and distracting to our management and Board of Directors. Further, the type and timing of resolution of such disputes are difficult to predict; and there is the potential that we could fail to enforce our rights either in part or in whole. Lastly, even if we successfully enforce our rights under our agreements with our collaborators, there is the possibility that we could fail to recover our expectancy following the litigation or arbitration, particularly for collaborators that are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

In addition, any dispute or litigation proceedings we may have with our collaborators in the future could delay development programs, reduce or eliminate potential milestone or other payments, create uncertainty as to ownership of intellectual property rights, distract management from other business activities and generate substantial expense. For example, in February 2022, Tasly indicated to us that it would like to discuss and

renegotiate the terms of the Tasly License Agreement; and in April 2022, we entered into an amendment to the Tasly License Agreement amending the initial payment and certain milestone payments. If we encounter similar situations with Tasly or other collaboration partners, we may fail to recognize the expected future revenue and may be unable to collaborate under the terms of the applicable arrangement.

Moreover, to the extent that any of our existing or future collaborators were to terminate a collaboration agreement, we may be forced to independently develop these product candidates, including funding preclinical studies or clinical trials, assuming marketing and distribution costs and defending intellectual property rights, or, in certain instances, abandon product candidates altogether, any of which could result in a change to our business plan and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not successfully engage in strategic transactions, including any additional collaborations we seek, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates, impact our cash position, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as additional collaborations, acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out- or in-licensing of product candidates or technologies that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. In particular, we will evaluate and, if strategically attractive, seek to enter into additional collaborations, including with major biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies. The competition for collaborators is intense, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Any new collaboration may be on terms that are not optimal for us, and we may not be able to maintain any new collaboration if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed, sales of an approved product candidate do not meet expectations, or the collaborator terminates the collaboration. 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 strategic partners. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the strategic partner’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed strategic partner’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership, without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. Moreover, if we acquire assets with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such assets due to an inability to successfully integrate them with our existing technologies and may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business.

We cannot assure you that following any such collaboration, or other strategic transaction, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction. For example, such transactions may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures and pose significant integration or implementation challenges or disrupt our management or business. These transactions would entail numerous operational and financial risks, including exposure to unknown liabilities, disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired products, product candidates or technologies, incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs, higher than expected collaboration, acquisition or integration costs, write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges, increased amortization expenses, difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business, impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business. Also, such strategic alliance, joint venture or acquisition may be prohibited. For example, our Loan and Security Agreement, in the absence of the related lenders’ prior written consent, restricts our ability to pursue certain mergers, acquisitions, amalgamations or consolidations that we may believe to be in our best interest.

Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks and would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Conversely, any failure to enter any additional collaboration or other strategic transaction that would be beneficial to us could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of any product candidate that reaches market.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct certain of our preclinical studies or clinical trials. If those third parties do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements or miss expected deadlines, our development program could be delayed with potentially material and adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have relied in some cases and intend to rely in the future on third-party clinical investigators, clinical research organizations, or CROs, clinical data management organizations and consultants to assist or provide the design, conduct, supervision and monitoring of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates. Because we intend to rely on these third parties and will not have the ability to conduct all preclinical studies or clinical trials independently, we will have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them on our own. These investigators, CROs and consultants will not be our employees and we will have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties with which we may contract might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our preclinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in the preclinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful.

If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of preclinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. The FDA requires preclinical studies to be conducted in accordance with good laboratory practices and clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, including for designing, conducting, recording and reporting the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control will not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Any adverse development or delay in our preclinical studies or clinical trials as a result of our reliance on third parties could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain sufficient raw and intermediate materials on a timely basis or if we experience other manufacturing or supply difficulties, our business may be adversely affected.

The manufacture of certain of our product candidates requires the timely delivery of sufficient amounts of raw and intermediate materials. We work closely with our suppliers to ensure the continuity of supply, but cannot guarantee these efforts will always be successful. Further, while efforts are made to diversify our sources of raw and intermediate materials, in certain instances we acquire raw and intermediate materials from a sole supplier. While we believe that alternative sources of supply exist where we rely on sole supplier relationships, there can be no assurance that we will be able to quickly establish additional or replacement sources for some materials. A reduction or interruption in supply, and an inability to develop alternative sources for such supply, could adversely affect our ability to manufacture our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner.

We currently manufacture a portion of our product candidates internally and also rely on third-party manufacturing and supply partners to supply components of our product candidates and materials used to manufacture our product candidates. Our inability to manufacture sufficient quantities of our product candidates, or the loss of our third-party suppliers, or our or their failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or to supply sufficient quantities at acceptable quality levels or prices, or at all, would materially and adversely affect our business.

Manufacturing is a vital component of our business strategy. To ensure timely and consistent product supply we currently use a hybrid product supply approach wherein certain elements of our product candidates are manufactured internally at our manufacturing facilities in San Carlos, California, and other elements are manufactured at qualified third-party CMOs. Since our own manufacturing facilities may be limited or unable to manufacture certain of our preclinical and clinical trial product materials and supplies, we rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture such clinical trial product materials and supplies for our or our collaborator’s needs. For example, we have entered into a manufacturing agreement with EMD Millipore Corporation to provide manufacturing services for certain linker-warhead materials used in our STRO-001 product candidate and to perform conjugation of the applicable linker-warhead with the antibody component of our luvelta and STRO-001 product candidates. We have also entered into agreements with Capua Bioservices, S.p.A. and with AGC Biologics GmbH for the manufacture of certain reagents used in the manufacture of our products with our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited, interrupted, or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. In particular, any replacement of our manufacturer could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In addition, replacement of a manufacturer may require a technology transfer to the new manufacturer, which involves technical risk that the transfer may not succeed or may be delayed, and which can incur significant costs.

The manufacturing process for a product candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. We, and our suppliers and manufacturers, must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as cGMPs. If we or our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we may not be able to rely on our or their manufacturing facilities for the manufacture of elements of our product candidates. Moreover, we do not control the manufacturing process at our contract manufacturers and are completely dependent on them for compliance with current regulatory requirements. In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty applying such skills or technology ourselves, or in transferring such to another third party. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to enable us, or to have another third party, manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines; and we may be required to repeat some of the development program. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate. To the extent that we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for product candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully. Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMPs could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

Additionally, we and our contract manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes, unstable political environments, or epidemics, pandemics, or contagious diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, or failures or delays in our manufacturing supply chain. For example, restrictions on travel imposed by governments, including China, or restrictions on person-in-plant permissions imposed by our contract manufacturers may limit the ability of our subject matter experts to visit our manufacturers and assist with technology transfers. If we or our contract manufacturers were to encounter interruptions from any of these events or other unforeseen events, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients in clinical trials, or to provide product for treatment of patients once approved, would be jeopardized.

We, or third-party manufacturers, may be unable to successfully scale-up manufacturing of our product candidates or materials used to manufacture components of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, which would delay or prevent us from developing our product candidates and commercializing approved products, if any.

In order to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, we will need to manufacture them in large quantities. We, or any manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we, or any manufacturing partners, are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates, or materials used in manufacturing components of our product candidates, in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing, and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Scaling up a biologic manufacturing process is a difficult and uncertain task, and we may not be successful in transferring our production system or our third-party manufacturers may not have the necessary capabilities to complete the implementation and development process. If we are unable to adequately validate or scale-up the manufacturing process at our own manufacturing facilities or those of our current manufacturers, we will need to transfer to another manufacturer and complete the manufacturing validation process, which can be lengthy. If we are able to adequately validate and scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates at our manufacturing facility or with a contract manufacturer, we will 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.

The manufacture of biologics is complex and we or our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials, our ability to obtain marketing approval, or our ability to provide supply of our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

Our product candidates are considered to be biologics and the process of manufacturing biologics and materials used to manufacture components of our products can be complex, time-consuming, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with cGMPs, regulations and guidelines for the manufacturing of biologics used in clinical trials and, if approved, marketed products. To date, we and our contract manufacturers have limited experience in the manufacturing of cGMP batches of our product candidates and materials used to manufacture components of our product candidates.

Manufacturing biologics is highly susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions.

If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party manufacturers, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. Moreover, if the FDA determines that our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party manufacturers are not in compliance with FDA laws and regulations, including those governing cGMPs, the FDA may deny BLA approval until the deficiencies are corrected or we replace the manufacturer in our BLA with a manufacturer that is in compliance.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with cGMPs, lot consistency, timely availability of raw materials and other technical challenges. Even if we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that manufacturers 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. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of any of our product candidates or products will not occur in the future. If we or our third-party manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide any product candidates to patients in planned clinical trials and products to patients, once approved, would be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of planned clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. Any adverse developments affecting clinical or commercial manufacturing of our product candidates or products, such as epidemics, pandemics or contagious diseases, may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates or products. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for product candidates or products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our supply chain could adversely affect our business and delay or impede the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates or products, if approved, and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As part of our process development efforts, we also may make changes to our manufacturing processes at various points during development, for various reasons, such as controlling costs, achieving scale, decreasing processing time, increasing manufacturing success rate or other reasons. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of our ongoing clinical trials or future clinical trials. In some circumstances, changes in the manufacturing process may require us to perform ex vivo comparability studies and to collect additional data from patients prior to undertaking more advanced clinical trials. For instance, changes in our process during the course of clinical development may require us to show the comparability of the product used in earlier clinical phases or at earlier portions of a trial to the product used in later clinical phases or later portions of the trial.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms to expand our pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products.

The success of our business depends in large part upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize products based on our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. Luvelta is our most advanced clinical stage program and STRO-001 is our next most advanced clinical stage program, and our preclinical and research programs may fail to identify other potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or for multiple programs, which would materially harm our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus our research and development efforts on certain selected product candidates. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable 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 such product candidate.

Failure to successfully validate, develop and obtain regulatory approval for companion diagnostics for our product candidates could harm our drug development strategy and operational results.

If companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs, the FDA may require regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic as a condition to approval of the product candidate. For example, as we are developing luvelta for treatment of patients having ovarian cancer with elevated FolRα expression levels, we are likely to be required to obtain FDA approval or clearance of a companion diagnostic, concurrent with approval of luvelta, to test for elevated FolRα expression. We do not have experience or capabilities in developing or commercializing diagnostics and plan to rely in large part on third parties to perform these functions. We have entered into an agreement to develop diagnostic assays suitable for use as a companion diagnostic for luvelta. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval or clearance prior to commercialization. Similarly, if we use a diagnostic test to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma and NHL by designing our pivotal trial or trials of STRO-001 in that indication to require that clinical trial patients have elevated CD74 expression as a criterion for enrollment, then we will likely be required to obtain FDA approval or clearance of a companion diagnostic, concurrent with approval of STRO-001, to test for elevated CD74 expression; we may also be required to demonstrate to the FDA the predictive utility of the companion diagnostic—namely, that the diagnostic selects for patients in whom the biologic therapy will be effective or more effective compared to patients not selected for by the diagnostic. In addition, our partner BMS may be required to develop and obtain regulatory clearance for a companion diagnostic to assess BCMA expression in patients in connection with their development of CC-99712.

If we or our collaborators, or any third party, are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for our product candidates, or experience delays in doing so:

In addition, although we believe genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases and conditions, our product candidates may be perceived negatively compared to alternative treatments that do not require the use of companion diagnostics, either due to the additional cost of the companion diagnostic or the need to complete additional procedures to identify genetic markers prior to administering our product candidates. If any of these events were to occur, our business would be harmed, possibly materially.

We face competition from entities that have developed or may develop product candidates for cancer, including companies developing novel treatments and technology platforms. If these companies develop technologies or product candidates more rapidly than we do or their technologies are more effective, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected.

The development and commercialization of drugs and therapeutic biologics is highly competitive. Our product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us

from achieving significant market penetration. Most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do and we may not be able to successfully compete. We compete with a variety of multinational biopharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and emerging biotechnology companies, as well as with technologies and product candidates being developed at universities and other research institutions. Our competitors have developed, are developing or will develop product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates and processes. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community and any new treatments, including those based on novel technology platforms, that enter the market. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we are trying, or may try, to develop product candidates. There is intense and rapidly evolving competition in the biotechnology, biopharmaceutical and antibody and immunoregulatory therapeutics fields. While we believe that our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms, associated intellectual property and our scientific and technical know-how give us a competitive advantage in this space, competition from many sources exists or may arise in the future. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnological and therapeutics companies, including companies focused on cancer immunotherapies, such as AstraZeneca PLC, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, Roche Holding Ltd, Sanofi S.A., and companies focused on ADCs, such as BMS, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eisai, Co., Ltd., ImmunoGen, Inc., Eli Lilly & Company, Pfizer, Exelixis, Inc., Seagen, Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Genentech, Inc., or Genentech, Gilead Sciences Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., and ADC Therapeutics SA, as well as numerous small companies. Moreover, we also compete with current and future therapeutics developed at universities and other research institutions.

We are aware of several companies that are developing ADCs, cytokine derivatives, bispecific antibodies and cancer immunotherapies, including companies developing ADCs directed to the same target as luvelta. For example, Immunogen recently received approval for a folate receptor α targeted ADC, ELAHERE™. BMS and Eisai are also collaborating on development of a similarly targeted ADC, known as MORAb-202. Many of these companies are well-capitalized and, in contrast to us, have significant clinical experience, and may include our existing or future collaborators. In addition, these companies compete with us in recruiting scientific and managerial talent.

Our success will depend partially on our ability to develop and protect therapeutics that are safer and more effective than competing products. Our commercial opportunity and success will be reduced or eliminated if competing products are safer, more effective, or less expensive than the therapeutics we develop.

If our most advanced product candidates are approved, they will compete with a range of therapeutic treatments that are either in development or currently marketed. Currently marketed oncology therapeutics include a range of biologic modalities with the top selling products by class spanning tumor targeting monoclonal antibodies, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Darzalex; to ADCs, such as Genentech’s Kadcyla; to immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as Merck’s Keytruda; to T cell-engager immunotherapies, such as Amgen, Inc.’s Blincyto; and to CAR-T cell therapies, such as Gilead’s Yescarta. In addition, numerous compounds are in clinical development for cancer treatment. The clinical development pipeline for cancer includes small molecules, antibodies, vaccines, cell therapies and immunotherapies from a variety of companies and institutions.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales, supply, and human resources or experience than we have. If we successfully obtain approval for any product candidate, we will face competition based on many different factors, including the safety and effectiveness of our products, the ease with which our products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position. Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive, or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

Any inability to attract and retain qualified key management and technical personnel would impair our ability to implement our business plan.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical development, manufacturing, and business development expertise of our management team, advisors and other specialized personnel. The loss of one or more members of our management team or other key employees or advisors could delay our research and development programs and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of

operations and prospects. The relationships that our key managers have cultivated within our industry make us particularly dependent upon their continued employment with us. We are dependent on the continued service of our technical personnel because of the highly technical nature of our product candidates and XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platform technologies and the specialized nature of the regulatory approval process. Because our management team and key employees are not obligated to provide us with continued service, they could terminate their employment with us at any time without penalty. Our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain other highly qualified scientific, technical and management personnel, as well as personnel with expertise in clinical testing, manufacturing, governmental regulation and commercialization. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities and other organizations. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates will be limited, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We will need to grow our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations.

As of December 31, 2022, we had 278 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. In addition, we have limited experience in product development and began our first clinical trials for our first two product candidates in 2018 and 2019. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development, regulatory and manufacturing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. We may not be able to implement improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls. Our inability to successfully manage our growth and expand our operations could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant percentage of our employees working remotely from time to time, which has amplified certain risks to our business. For example, the increase in remote work has increased demand on our information technology resources and systems, increased phishing and other malicious activity as cybercriminals try to exploit the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to an increase in the number of points of potential exposure, such as laptops and mobile devices, that need to be secured. Any failure to effectively manage these risks, including to timely identify and appropriately respond to any security incidents, may adversely affect our business. The COVID-19 pandemic has also had an adverse effect on our ability to attract, recruit, interview and hire at the pace we would typically expect to support our rapidly expanding operations. Additionally, we have incurred increased costs as a result of COVID-19, including increased expenses to implement additional measures to ensure the health and safety of our workforce, such as reimbursing for periodic COVID-19 testing and providing face masks.

If any of our product candidates are approved for marketing and commercialization and we are unable to develop sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or enter into agreements with third parties to perform these functions on acceptable terms, we will be unable to commercialize successfully any such future products.

We currently have limited sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or experience. If any of our product candidates are approved, we will need to develop additional internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities to commercialize such products, which would be expensive and time consuming, or enter into collaborations with third parties to perform these services. If we decide to market our products directly, we will need to commit significant financial and managerial resources to develop a marketing and sales force with technical expertise and supporting distribution, administration and compliance capabilities. If we rely on third parties with such capabilities to market our products or decide to co-promote products with collaborators, we will need to establish and maintain marketing and distribution arrangements with third parties, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all. In entering into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements, any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of the third parties and there can be no assurance that such third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or be successful in gaining market acceptance of any approved product. If we are not successful in commercializing any product approved in the future, either on our own or through third parties, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to operate in foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. To obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and do not receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Our failure to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in another country may significantly diminish the commercial prospects of that product candidate and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to the risks and uncertainties, including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements and reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries.

Price controls imposed in foreign markets may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or current or future collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our therapeutic candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. 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 reimbursement of any product candidate approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Price controls imposed in the U.S. may affect our future profitability.

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in recent Executive Orders, several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Current and future presidential budget proposals and future legislation may contain further drug price control measures that could be enacted. Congress and current and future U.S. presidential administrations may continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. 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. If such pricing controls are enacted and are set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and our ability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As we are conducting clinical trials of our product candidates, we may be exposed to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our

manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our stock price. While we currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development, we may need to obtain higher levels prior to later stages of clinical development or marketing any of our product candidates. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

As with all companies, we are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we may establish, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, inappropriately share confidential and proprietary information externally, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or 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 material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, or reputational harm.

Moreover, our employees are increasingly utilizing social media tools and our website as a means of communication. Despite our efforts to monitor social media communications, there is risk that the unauthorized use of social media by our employees to communicate about our products or business, or any inadvertent disclosure of material, nonpublic information through these means, may result in violations of applicable laws and regulations, which may give rise to liability and result in harm to our business. In addition, there is also risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We depend on our information technology systems, and any failure of these systems, or those of our CROs, third-party vendors, or other contractors or consultants we may utilize, could harm our business. Security breaches, cyber-attacks, loss of data, and other disruptions could compromise sensitive information related to our business or other personal information or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business, reputation, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We collect and maintain information in digital form that is necessary to conduct our business, and we are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information health information, and personal information. We have established physical, electronic and organizational measures designed to safeguard and secure our systems to prevent a data security incident (which may include, for example: data breaches, viruses or other malicious code, coordinated attacks, data loss, phishing attacks, ransomware, denial of service attacks, or other security or information technology incidents caused by threat actors, technological vulnerabilities or human error), and rely on commercially available systems, software, tools, and monitoring to provide security for our information technology systems and the processing, transmission and storage of digital information. We have also outsourced

elements of our information technology infrastructure, and as a result, a number of third-party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information. Our internal information technology systems and infrastructure, and those of our current and any future collaborators, CROs, third-party vendors, contractors and consultants and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization.

The risk of a security breach or disruption or data loss, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. In addition, the prevalent use of mobile devices that access confidential information increases the risk of data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information or other intellectual property. The costs to us or our CROs or other contractors or consultants we may utilize to mitigate a data security incident and security vulnerabilities could be significant, and while we have implemented security measures designed to protect our data security and information technology systems, our efforts to address these problems may not be successful, and these problems could result in unexpected interruptions, delays, cessation of service and other harm to our business and our competitive position. We have incurred successful phishing attempts in the past, although we believe that these attempts were detected and neutralized without any compromise to our data and prior to any significant impact to our business. We have also implemented measures to prevent such attacks, but we may still be subject to similar attacks in the future. We are also aware of publicly disclosed security breaches at certain third-parties on which we rely, although we have not been informed of any resulting breach to our data. If such an event were to occur, whether to us or a third-party on which we rely, and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Further, if we are unable to generate or maintain access to essential patient samples or data for our research and development and manufacturing activities for our programs, our business could be materially adversely affected.

Moreover, if a computer security breach affects our systems or results in the unauthorized release of personally identifiable information, our reputation could be materially damaged. Such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media or individuals pursuant to various federal and state privacy and security laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing rules and regulations, regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission and state breach notification laws. We also may be subject to European privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. We would also be exposed to a risk of loss or litigation and potential liability under laws, regulations and contracts that protect the privacy and security of personal information that may result in regulatory scrutiny, fines, private right of action settlements, and other consequences. Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules and possible government oversight. Our failure to comply with such laws or to adequately secure the information we hold could result in significant liability or reputational harm and, in turn, a material adverse effect on our client base, member base and revenue.

Our information technology systems could face serious disruptions that could adversely affect our business.

Our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems, including corporate firewalls, servers, leased lines, and connection to the Internet, face the risk of systemic failure that could disrupt our operations. A significant disruption in the availability of our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems could cause interruptions and delays in our research and development and manufacturing work.

The terms of our Loan and Security Agreement require us to meet certain covenants and place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, the terms of any new debt could further restrict our ability to operate our business.

The Loan and Security Agreement is secured by a lien covering all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property. Subject to the terms of the Loan and Security Agreement, we have the option to prepay all, but not less than all, of the amounts borrowed under the Loan and Security Agreement, subject to certain penalty payments, prior to the March 1, 2024, maturity date, at which time all amounts borrowed will be due and payable.

The Loan and Security Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, indemnification provisions and events of default. The affirmative covenants include, among others, covenants requiring us to maintain our legal existence and governmental approvals, deliver certain financial reports and maintain certain intellectual property rights. The negative covenants include, among others, restrictions on transferring or licensing our assets, changing our business, incurring additional indebtedness, engaging in mergers or acquisitions, paying dividends or making other distributions, and creating other liens on our assets, in each case subject to customary exceptions. If we default under the Loan and Security Agreement, the lenders will be able to declare all obligations immediately due and payable and take control of our collateral, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us or to immediately cease operations. The Loan and Security Agreement previously included a covenant requiring us to keep substantially all of our cash and investments with SVB, the substantial majority of which was held in a custodial account with another institution, for which SVB Asset Management was the advisor. In March 2023, we amended our Loan and Security Agreement to allow us to hold cash and investments at multiple financial institutions and we began the process of moving cash and investments into accounts at other financial institutions. Further, if we are liquidated, the rights of Oxford and SVB to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Oxford, acting as collateral agent for the lenders, could declare a default under the Loan and Security Agreement upon the occurrence of any event that Oxford and SVB interpret as a material adverse change as defined under the Loan and Security Agreement, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately or to attempt to reverse the declaration of default through negotiation or litigation. Any declaration by the collateral agent of an event of default could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. If we raise any additional debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be affected adversely.

Our research, development and manufacturing involve the use of hazardous chemicals and materials, including radioactive materials. We maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities in South San Francisco and San Carlos, California that are required for our research, development and manufacturing activities. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous chemicals and materials. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing these materials in our South San Francisco and San Carlos facilities comply with the relevant guidelines of the two municipalities, the county of San Mateo, the state of California and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, including employee and contractor training and procedures regarding safe handling and disposal, the risk of accidental or mistaken contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of animals and biohazardous materials. 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 these materials or from other hazards potentially present in our workplaces, such as high voltage electricity, process steam or other hot material, liquid nitrogen or other cold material, materials stored under pressure, laboratory instruments that incorporate powerful lasers or magnets, sonic resonance, heavy machinery, and the like, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. While we maintain pollution legal liability insurance for our manufacturing facility in San Carlos, California, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological or hazardous materials in our other locations. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.

Our current operations are in two cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we, or the third parties upon whom we depend, may be adversely affected by earthquakes, other natural disasters, pandemics, including any significant resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, or other catastrophic events and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our current operations are located in our facilities in South San Francisco and San Carlos, California. Any unplanned event, such as earthquake, flood, fire, explosion, extreme weather condition, epidemic, pandemic or contagious disease, including any significant resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or man-made accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have

significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes, epidemics, pandemics or contagious diseases, or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations, and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage, epidemics, pandemics or contagious disease, or other events occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research or manufacturing facilities or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. In addition, the long-term effects of climate change on general economic conditions and the pharmaceutical industry in particular are unclear, and may heighten or intensify existing risk of natural disasters. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in tax laws or regulations that are applied adversely to us or our customers may have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the 2017 Tax Act, enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the 2017 Tax Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the 2017 Tax Act may be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, modified certain provisions of the 2017 Tax Act. Changes in corporate tax rates, the realization of net deferred tax assets relating to our operations, and the deductibility of expenses under the 2017 Tax Act or future reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

Our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards to offset taxable income could be limited.

We plan to use our current year operating losses to offset taxable income from any revenue generated from operations, including revenue from licensing and collaboration agreements and other similar transactions. To the extent that our taxable income exceeds any current year operating losses, we plan to use our net operating loss carryforwards from prior taxable years to offset income that would otherwise be taxable. Our net operating loss carryforwards generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017, are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 years under applicable U.S. tax law. Under the 2017 Tax Act, as modified by the CARES Act, our federal net operating losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal net operating losses, is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the 2017 Tax Act or the CARES Act.

In addition, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if we experience an “ownership change” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards to offset our post-change income may be limited. Based on Section 382 studies performed for certain prior periods, it is more likely than not that we experienced an ownership change on November 20, 2019, which imposed limitations on the use of our net operating losses arising before that date. In addition, we may have experienced other ownership changes in the past and may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of equity offerings or other shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. As a result, our use of federal NOL carryforwards could be limited. State net operating loss carryforwards may be similarly limited. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. Any such limitations may result in greater tax liabilities than we would incur in the absence of such limitations and any increased liabilities could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Our investment in Vaxcyte is subject to risk

As of December 31, 2022, we held Vaxcyte common stock with a fair value of $32.0 million. Vaxcyte common stock is publicly traded and therefore subject to the various risk factors associated with any publicly traded company, including risks associated with Vaxcyte’s business, its business outlook, cash flow requirements and financial performance, the state of the market and the general economic climate, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, rising interest rates, and inflation. Vaxcyte common stock has been subject to substantial volatility, and the change in fair value of our interests in Vaxcyte will materially impact our reported net income or net loss in our financial statements.

Our cash and investments could be adversely affected if the financial institutions in which we hold our cash and investments fail.

We regularly maintain cash balances at third-party financial institutions, including with SVB, in excess of the FDIC insurance limit and similar regulatory insurance limits outside the United States. Further, if we enter into a credit, loan or other similar facility with a financial institution, certain covenants included in such facility may require as security that we keep a significant portion of our cash with the institution providing such facility. If a depository institution where we maintain deposits fails or is subject to adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we may not be able to recover all, if any, of our deposits, which could adversely impact our operating liquidity and financial performance.

Our financial results may be adversely affected by changes in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

Generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP, are subject to interpretation by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or the FASB, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the SEC and various bodies formed to promulgate and interpret appropriate accounting principles. For example, in May 2014, the FASB issued accounting standards update No. 2014-09 (Topic 606), Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which supersedes nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under U.S. GAAP. We adopted this new accounting standard as of January 1, 2019. Any difficulties in implementing this guidance could cause us to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations, which could result in regulatory discipline and harm investors’ confidence in us. Additionally, the implementation of this guidance or a change in other principles or interpretations could have a significant effect on our financial results, and could affect the reporting of transactions completed before the announcement of a change. Furthermore, we have adopted Topic 606 through the modified retrospective method. This will impact the comparability of our financial results, which might lead investors to draw incorrect conclusions that could harm investor interest in holding or purchasing our equity.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are not able to obtain, maintain and enforce sufficient patent and other intellectual property protection for our technologies or product candidates, development and commercialization of our product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in part on our, our licensor’s and our collaborators’ ability to obtain and maintain patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, for our product candidates, methods used to manufacture our product candidates and methods for treating patients using our product candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We, our licensors and collaborators may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our product candidates in a timely fashion or at all, including delays as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our or our licensors’ operations. Further, we, our licensors and collaborators may not be able to prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we, our licensors and collaborators will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is also possible that we, our licensors, and our collaborators will fail to file patent applications covering inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before a competitor or another third party files a patent application covering, or publishes information disclosing, a similar, independently-developed invention. Such competitor’s patent application may pose obstacles to our ability to obtain or limit the scope of patent protection we may obtain. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of all patent applications that we license from third parties, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors or collaborators fail to establish,

maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaborators are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. Also, 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, collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, 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, our licensors or collaborators were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, or if such patents rights may otherwise become invalid. Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical therapeutic candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications directed to composition of matter of our therapeutic candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our therapeutics for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, clinicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute. Our existing issued and granted patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable or that any issued or granted patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to cover our product candidates or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Moreover, the patent position of biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual questions. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our current and future proprietary technology and product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. If third parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely affect our position in the market.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and biopharmaceutical patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology. While we will endeavor to try to protect our product candidates with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable.

Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. In addition, there can be no assurance that:

If we or our licensors or collaborators fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, our in-licensed patents may be subject to a reservation of rights by the licensor, its affiliates and one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for noncommercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can also exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, 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 patent protection for certain aspects of our product candidates, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary

information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time- consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions 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, 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, our competitive position would be harmed which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other companies or organizations may challenge our or our licensors’ patent rights or may assert patent rights that prevent us from developing and commercializing our products.

Therapeutics in oncology or other disease areas developed in cell-free-based synthesis systems are a relatively new scientific field. We have obtained grants and issuances of, and have obtained a license from a third party on an exclusive basis to, patents related to our proprietary XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms. The issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States and in key markets around the world that we own or license claim many different methods, compositions and processes relating to the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of antibody-based and other therapeutics.

As the field of antibody-based therapeutics continues to mature, patent applications are being processed by national patent offices around the world. There is uncertainty about which patents will issue and, if they do, as to when, to whom, and with what claims. In addition, third parties may attempt to invalidate our intellectual property rights. Even if our rights are not directly challenged, disputes could lead to the weakening of our intellectual property rights. Our defense against any attempt by third parties to circumvent or invalidate our intellectual property rights could be costly to us, could require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects or our ability to successfully compete.

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

Obtaining a valid and enforceable issued or granted patent covering our technology in the United States and worldwide can be extremely costly, and our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights may not exist in some countries outside the United States or may be less extensive in some countries than in the United States. In jurisdictions where we or our licensors or collaborators have not obtained patent protection, competitors may seek to use our or their technology to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or they have patent protection, but where it is more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the United States. Competitor products may compete with our future products in jurisdictions where we do not have issued or granted patents or where our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual property protection, particularly relating to biopharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us or our licensors or collaborators to prevent the infringement of our or their patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our or their proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors or collaborators. We or our licensors or collaborators may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors or collaborators initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

We generally file a provisional patent application first (a priority filing) at the USPTO. An international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT, is usually filed within twelve months after the priority filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in the United States, EU, Japan, Australia and Canada and, depending on the individual case, also in any or all of, inter alia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea and other jurisdictions. We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant registration authorities, while granted by others. It is also quite common that depending on the country, various scopes of patent protection may be granted on the same product candidate or technology.

Geopolitical actions in the United States and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of issued patents. For example, the United States and foreign government actions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees that have citizenship or nationality in, are registered in, or have predominately primary place of business or profit-making activities in the United States and other countries that Russia has deemed unfriendly without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensors or collaborators encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors or collaborators are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

No earlier than June 1, 2023, European applications will soon have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (“UPC). This will be a significant change in European patent practice. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation.

We, our licensors or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may need to resort to litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other proprietary rights, all of which could be costly, time consuming, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our 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, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that an individual connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant 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 one or more of our products or certain aspects of our platform technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. 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. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our therapeutics.

As the biopharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. There can be no assurance that our operations do not, or will not in the future, infringe existing or future third-party patents. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our operations is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our therapeutic candidates in any jurisdiction.

Numerous U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications exist in our market that are owned by third parties. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our therapeutics. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. applications that will not be filed outside the U.S. can remain confidential until patents issue. In addition, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can be revived. Furthermore, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our therapeutics or the use of our therapeutics. As such, there may be applications of others now pending or recently revived patents of which we are unaware. These patent applications may later result in issued patents, or the revival of previously abandoned patents, that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use or sell our therapeutics.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our therapeutics are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including our research programs, product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof, and could result 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.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and we, our licensors or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may become subject to third party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights. We might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our product candidates. Such litigation or licenses could be costly or not available on commercially reasonable terms.

We, our licensors or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. For example, one of our European patents related to technology auxiliary to our XpressCF® platform is involved in an opposition proceeding at the European Patent Office, or EPO, and was revoked by the EPO in 2021. In April 2022, an appeal was filed and oral proceedings for the appeal is scheduled for October 27, 2023. This may prevent us from asserting this patent against our competitors practicing otherwise infringing methods in relevant European

countries where this patent has been granted. There are many issued and pending patents that might claim aspects of our product candidates and modifications that we may need to apply to our product candidates. There are also many issued patents that claim antibodies, portions of antibodies, cytokines, half-life extending polymers, linkers, cytotoxins, or other warheads that may be relevant for the products we wish to develop. Thus, it is possible that one or more organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights on reasonable terms, we may be delayed or may not be able to market products or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We are obligated under certain of our license and collaboration agreements to indemnify and hold harmless our licensors or collaborators for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by use. For example, we are obligated under the Stanford Agreement to indemnify and hold harmless Stanford for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us resulting from exercise of the license from Stanford. If we, our licensors or collaborators, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have infringed willfully. In addition, we, our licensors or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we or our existing or future collaborators may be unable to effectively market product candidates based on our technology, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation could divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

Because the antibody-based therapeutics landscape is still evolving, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third-party rights. There are numerous companies that have pending patent applications and issued patents broadly covering antibodies generally, covering antibodies directed against the same targets as, or targets similar to, those we are pursuing, or covering linkers and cytotoxic warheads similar to those that we are using in our product candidates. For example, we are aware of an issued patent, expected to expire in 2031, that relates to strained alkyne reagents that can be used as synthetic precursors for certain of our linker-warheads. We are also aware of an issued patent expected to expire in 2028, relating to methods for targeting maytansinoids to a selected population of cells with a cell-binding agent conjugated to a maytansinoid with a non-cleavable linker. We are further aware of a published patent application relating to certain conjugates comprising a genus of hemiasterlin derivatives that, if the claims were to issue as they are currently presented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for examination, may be potentially relevant to products incorporating our hemiasterlin-derived linker-warhead. If any of these patents are valid and not yet expired when, and if, we receive marketing approval for luvelta or STRO-001, as applicable, we may need to seek a license to one or more of these patents, each of which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Failure to receive a license to any of these patents, or other potentially relevant patents currently unknown to us, could delay commercialization of luvelta or STRO-001. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover our products or product candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or product candidates until such patents expire or unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may be issued patents of which we are not aware, held by third parties that, if found to be valid and enforceable, could be alleged to be infringed by our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and related technologies and product candidates. There also may be pending patent applications of which we are not aware that may result in issued patents, which could be alleged to be infringed by our XpressCF® and XpressCF+® platforms and related technologies and product candidates. If such an infringement claim should be brought and be successful, we may be required to pay substantial damages, including potentially treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, and we may be forced to abandon our product candidates or seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and

elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technologies could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our products or the use of our products. Third-party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in marketing our products. Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. 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. 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. Moreover, such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. 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 our obligations under any license, collaboration or other agreements, we may be required to pay damages and could lose intellectual property rights that are necessary for developing and protecting our product candidates or we could lose certain rights to grant sublicenses.

Our current licenses impose, and any future licenses we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement and/or other obligations on us. If we breach any of these obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, which could result in us being unable to develop, manufacture and sell any future products that are covered by the licensed technology or enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot determine currently the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

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

In addition, 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 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 be subject to claims that we or our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ or consultants’ former employers or their clients. These claims may be costly to defend and if we do not successfully do so, we may be required to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we

fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and/or rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Changes in U.S. patent and ex-U.S. patent laws 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 or in other ex-U.S. jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. In the United States, numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the America Invents Act, enacted within the last several years involves significant changes in patent legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, some of which cases either narrow the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weaken the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. precludes a claim to a nucleic acid having a stated nucleotide sequence that is identical to a sequence found in nature and unmodified. We currently are not aware of an immediate impact of this decision on our patents or patent applications because we are developing product candidates that contain modifications that we believe are not found in nature. However, this decision has yet to be clearly interpreted by courts and by the USPTO. We cannot assure you that the interpretations of this decision or subsequent rulings will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, and similar legislative and regulatory bodies in other countries in which we may pursue patent protection, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

Our 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 or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. If we are unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed. Changes in regulatory policy may render our strategies for obtaining regulatory approval less effective or completely ineffective, preventing us from obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates on time or at all.

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or early clinical development and their risk of failure is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. 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 development 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. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits, despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials.

We commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial of STRO-001, an ADC directed against CD74, for certain cancers in April 2018 and commenced a luvelta Phase 1 trial focused on ovarian and endometrial cancers in March 2019. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2021, we initiated a new cohort of the Phase 1 study of luvelta for endometrial cancer and an additional Phase 1 study for the treatment of ovarian cancer with luvelta in combination with bevacizumab. Commencing our future clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design and submitting an IND or similar submission with the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authority. Even after we submit our IND or comparable submissions in other jurisdictions, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trials or disagree with our study design, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or amend our protocols or impose stricter conditions on the commencement of clinical trials.

We or our collaborators may experience delays in completing our preclinical studies and initiating or completing clinical trials of our product candidates. We do not know whether planned preclinical studies and clinical trials will be completed on schedule or at all, or whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, have patients enrolled on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. We or our collaborators may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval to commercialize our product candidates. Our development programs may be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs or therapeutic biologics that may be approved for the indications being investigated by us. Furthermore, we expect to rely on our collaborators, CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and, while we expect to enter into agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

We could encounter delays if prescribing physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles.

Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, our collaborators, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial, or placed on clinical hold by the FDA or other regulatory authorities 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 drug or therapeutic biologic, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, 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.

We and/or our collaborators may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, U.S. or foreign regulatory approval and, as a result, unable to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, testing, development, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, approval, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, storage, packaging, advertising and promotion, pricing, marketing and distribution of drugs and therapeutic biologics. Rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process are required to be completed successfully in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new drug or therapeutic biologic can be marketed. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. It is possible that none of the product candidates we

may develop, either alone or with our collaborators, will obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us or our existing or future collaborators to begin selling them.

Although our employees have experience in conducting and managing clinical trials from prior employment at other companies, we, as a company, have no prior experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. The time required to obtain FDA and other approvals is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate, and may be further delayed due to one or more temporary federal government shutdowns. The standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when regulating us require judgment and can change, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty their application. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We or our collaborators may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, for example, from future legislation or administrative action, or from changes in FDA policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and FDA regulatory review. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or the impact of such changes, if any. For example, the Oncology Center of Excellence within the FDA has recently advanced Project Optimus, which is an initiative to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development to emphasize selection of an optimal dose, which is a dose or doses that maximizes not only the efficacy of a drug but the safety and tolerability as well. This shift from the prior approach, which generally determined the maximum tolerated dose, may require sponsors to spend additional time and resources to further explore a product candidate’s dose-response relationship to facilitate optimum dose selection in a target population. Other recent Oncology Center of Excellence initiatives have included Project FrontRunner, a new initiative with a goal of developing a framework for identifying candidate drugs for initial clinical development in the earlier advanced setting rather than for treatment of patients who have received numerous prior lines of therapies or have exhausted available treatment options. We are considering these policy changes as they relate to our programs.

Given that the product candidates we are developing, either alone or with our collaborators, represent a new approach to the manufacturing and type of therapeutic biologics, the FDA and its foreign counterparts have not yet established any definitive policies, practices or guidelines in relation to these product candidates. Moreover, the FDA may respond to any BLA that we may submit by defining requirements that we do not anticipate. Such responses could delay clinical development of our product candidates. In addition, because there may be approved treatments for some of the diseases for which we may seek approval, in order to receive regulatory approval, we may need to demonstrate through clinical trials that the product candidates we develop to treat these diseases, if any, are not only safe and effective, but safer or more effective than existing products. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been increased public and political pressure on the FDA with respect to the approval process for new drugs and therapeutic biologics, and FDA standards, especially regarding product safety, appear to have become more stringent.

Any delay or failure in obtaining required approvals could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues from the particular product candidate for which we are seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product may be subject to limitations on the approved uses for which we may market the product or on the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, as part of a BLA or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved biologic, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may limit the size of the market for the product and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.

We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval process described above, as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. FDA approval does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States and vice versa. Any delay or failure to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approval for a product candidate could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Delays in obtaining regulatory approval of our manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our commercialization efforts. To date, no product using a cell-free manufacturing process in the United States has received approval from the FDA.

Before we can begin to commercially manufacture our product candidates in third-party or our own facilities, we must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA for a BLA that describes in detail the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls for the product. A manufacturing authorization must also be obtained from the appropriate EU regulatory authorities. The timeframe required to obtain such approval or authorization is uncertain. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of our manufacturing facility by the FDA before any of our product candidates can obtain marketing approval, if ever. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. The cGMP requirements govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP, we will be obligated to expend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may not be permitted to sell any products that we may develop.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expenses. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal. We may also be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Any regulatory approvals that we or our existing or future collaborators obtain for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which a 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.

In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, import, export, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. The FDA has significant post-market authority, including the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-market studies or clinical trials to evaluate safety risks related to the use of a product or to require withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA also has the authority to require a REMS plan after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug or therapeutic biologic. The manufacturing facilities we use to make a future product, if any, will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, including for continued compliance with cGMP requirements. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with our third-party manufacturers, manufacturing processes or facilities may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market. If we rely on third-party manufacturers, we will not have control over compliance with applicable rules and regulations by such manufacturers. Any product promotion and advertising will also be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. If we or our existing or future collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements in the United States or foreign jurisdictions in which we seek to market our products, we or they may be subject to, among other things, fines, warning letters, holds on clinical trials, delay of approval or refusal by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory bodies to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, administrative detention of products, refusal to permit the import or export of products, operating restrictions, injunction, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Subsequent discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The FDA policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

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.

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, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. In addition, government funding of other government agencies 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 to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities.

The ability of the FDA and other government agencies to properly administer their functions is highly dependent on the levels of government funding and the ability to fill key leadership appointments, among various factors. Delays in filling or replacing key positions could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and other agencies to fulfill their functions, and could greatly impact healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for a period of time, the FDA temporarily postponed most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities along with routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. The FDA has since developed a rating system to determine what categories of regulatory activity can take place in a given geographic region. As of May 2021, the FDA is either continuing, on a case-by-case basis, to conduct “mission-critical” inspections (foreign and domestic) or, where possible to do so safely, resuming prioritized domestic inspections, which generally include preapproval, pre-license, surveillance, and for-cause inspections. In February 2022, the FDA stated that limited staff resources and increased workload associated with COVID-19 impacted its ability to meet user fee performance goals. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may face difficulties from healthcare legislative reform measures.

Existing regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. 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 and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, or together, the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

There have been legislative and judicial efforts to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all or certain aspects of the ACA, including measures taken during the former presidential administration. By way of example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the TCJA, was enacted, effective January 1, 2019, and included, among other things, a provision repealing the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future.

The 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices, and effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. U.S. federal government agencies also currently face potentially significant spending reductions, which may further impact healthcare expenditures. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A joint select committee on deficit reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Moreover, on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If federal spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA or the National Institutes of Health to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any products we may develop.

Moreover, payment methodologies, including payment for companion diagnostics, may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in

reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In addition, CMS has begun bundling the Medicare payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient setting and, beginning in 2018, CMS will pay for clinical laboratory services based on a weighted average of reported prices that private payors, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid Managed Care plans pay for laboratory services. Further, on March 16, 2018, CMS finalized its National Coverage Determination, or NCD, for certain diagnostic laboratory tests using next generation sequencing that are approved by the FDA as a companion in vitro diagnostic and used in a cancer with an FDA-approved companion diagnostic indication. Under the NCD, diagnostic tests that gain FDA approval or clearance as an in vitro companion diagnostic will automatically receive full coverage and be available for patients with recurrent, metastatic relapsed, refractory or stages III and IV cancer. Additionally, the NCD extended coverage to repeat testing when the patient has a new primary diagnosis of cancer.

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. The FDA released a final rule in September 2020 providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada.

Further, in November 2020, HHS finalized 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. The rule also created 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. The implementation of this final rule was delayed by the Biden administration until January 1, 2023 and subsequently delayed by the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, until January 1, 2032. In December 2020, CMS issued a final rule implementing significant manufacturer price reporting changes under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, effective January 1, 2024, the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs will be eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than they receive on the sale of products. It is unclear to what extent these new requirements will be implemented and to what extent these regulations or any future legislation or regulations by the Biden administration will have on our business, including our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability.

On September 9, 2021, the Biden Administration published a wide-ranging list of policy proposals, most of which would need to be carried out by Congress, to reduce drug prices and drug payment. These initiatives recently culminated in the enactment of the IRA in August 2022, which will, among other things, allow HHS to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D, although this will only apply to high-expenditure single-source biologics that have been approved for at least 11 years (7 years for drugs). The negotiated prices, which will first become effective in 2026, will be capped at a statutory ceiling price. Beginning in October 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 2023 for Medicare Part B, the IRA also penalizes drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part D and Part B drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminates the “donut hole” under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the enrollee maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum, and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA also extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. 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.

Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial

and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA authorization under an FDA expanded access program; however, manufacturers are not obligated to provide investigational new drug products under the current federal right to try law. We may choose to seek an expanded access program for our product candidates, or to utilize comparable rules in other countries that allow the use of a drug, on a named patient basis or under a compassionate use program.

We expect that the ACA, the IRA and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.

Our operations and relationships with healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-bribery, anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to, among other things, enforcement actions, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, third-party payors and customers expose us to broadly applicable anti-bribery, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by the U.S. federal government and the states and the foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state anti-bribery and healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

If we or our collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market and sell our products successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our products by the market. These enforcement actions include, among others:

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, or reputational harm, any of which could adversely affect our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

Our failure to comply with privacy and data security laws, regulations and standards may cause our business to be materially adversely affected.

We maintain a quantity of sensitive information, including confidential business and patient health information in connection with our clinical trials, and are subject to US and international laws and regulations governing the privacy and security of such information. Each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations and constantly evolving. In the United States, there are numerous federal and state privacy and data security laws and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure and protection of personal information, including federal and

state health information privacy laws, federal and state security breach notification laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws. In contrast, the EU and United Kingdom (“UK”) GDPR, which applies extraterritorially, imposes several strict requirements for controllers and processors of personal information. These include higher standards for obtaining consent from individuals to process their personal information, increased requirements pertaining to the processing of special categories of personal information (such as health information) and pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data, and heightened transfer requirements of personal information from the European Economic Area/UK/Switzerland to countries not deemed to have adequate data protections laws (e.g., the U.S. is one such country as of January 1, 2023, although active treaty negotiations between the U.S. and the EU may change that status in 2023). The GDPR also provides that countries in the European Economic Area may establish their own laws and regulations further restricting the processing of certain personal information, including genetic data, biometric data, and health data. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million (approximately $22.6 million) or 4 percent of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater.

In the United States, in addition to HIPAA, various federal (for example, the Federal Trade Commission) and state regulators have adopted, or are considering adopting, laws and regulations concerning personal information and data security. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, international, or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, all of which may complicate compliance efforts. For example, California, which continues to be a critical state with respect to evolving consumer privacy laws after enacting the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), later amended by ballot measure through the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”). The CPRA took effect in January 2023 and enforcement will begin on July 1, 2023, subject to regulations promulgated through a newly created enforcement agency called the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”). Failure to comply with the CCPA and the CPRA may result in significant civil penalties, injunctive relief, or statutory or actual damages as determined by the CPPA and California Attorney General through its investigative authority. Notably, comparable consumer privacy laws are set to take effect in 2023 in other states including the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (effective January 1, 2023), the Colorado Privacy Act and the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (both effective July 1, 2023), and the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (effective December 31, 2023). Compliance with this new privacy legislation may result in additional costs and expense of resources to maintain compliance. There is also discussion in the U.S. of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we would become subject if it is enacted.

We cannot provide assurance that (i) current or future legislation will not prevent us from generating or maintaining personal information, or (ii) that patients will consent to the use of their personal information (as necessary). Either of these circumstances may prevent us from undertaking or publishing essential research and development, manufacturing, and commercialization, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.

Federal, state, and foreign government requirements include obligations of companies to notify regulators and/or individuals of security breaches or other similar reportable incidents experienced by us, or our vendors, contractors, or organizations with whom we had specific contractual obligations to protect our data. Further, the improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our data or a third-party’s personal information could subject us to individual or consumer class action litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings by federal, state, and local regulatory entities in the United States and by international regulatory entities. Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules and possible government oversight.

In addition to government regulation, privacy advocates and industry groups have and may in the future propose self-regulatory standards from time to time. These and other industry standards may legally or contractually apply to us, or we may elect to comply with such standards. It is possible that if our practices are not consistent or viewed as not consistent with legal and regulatory requirements, including changes in laws, regulations and standards or new interpretations or applications of existing laws, regulations and standards, we may become subject to audits, inquiries, whistleblower complaints, adverse media coverage, investigations, loss of export privileges, or severe criminal or civil sanctions, all of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, reputation, and financial condition. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants, which are likely to increase over time. In addition, such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, distract management or divert resources from other initiatives and projects, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state, or similar foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and

security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties, or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidate, such product candidate may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription biopharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval.

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if we succeed in bringing one or more products to the market, these products may not be considered cost-effective, and the amount reimbursed for any products may be insufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive basis. Because our programs are in the early stages of development, we are unable at this time to determine their cost effectiveness or the likely level or method of coverage and reimbursement. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, and are seeking to reduce the prices charged or the amounts reimbursed for biopharmaceutical products. If the price we are able to charge for any products we develop, or the coverage and reimbursement provided for such products, is inadequate in light of our development and other costs, our return on investment could be affected adversely.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs or therapeutic biologics, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or therapeutic biologic is approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug or therapeutic biologic will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution.

Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs or therapeutic biologics, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may be based on payments allowed for lower cost drugs or therapeutic biologics that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs or therapeutic biologics may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs or therapeutic biologics from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval processes apart from Medicare determinations. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for new drugs or therapeutic biologics that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If in the future we are unable to establish U.S. or global sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if they are approved and we may not be able to generate any revenue.

We currently have a limited team for the marketing, sales and distribution of any of our product candidates that are able to obtain regulatory approval. To commercialize any product candidates after approval, we must build, on a territory-by-territory basis, marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in

doing so. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we may decide to establish an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. For example, some state and local jurisdictions have licensing and continuing education requirements for pharmaceutical sales representatives, which requires time and financial resources. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market.

With respect to the commercialization of all or certain of our product candidates, we may choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

With the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar biological products (both highly similar and interchangeable biological products) was created. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as interchangeable based on its similarity to an existing reference product. The BPCIA provides a period of exclusivity for products granted “reference product exclusivity,” under which an application for a biosimilar product referencing such products cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the first licensure date of the reference product licensed under a BLA. On March 6, 2015, the FDA approved the first biosimilar product under the BPCIA. FDA has accelerated licensure of biosimilar products since the first biosimilar was approved in 2015. However, FDA has yet to deem a biosimilar product interchangeable with the reference product. While FDA has implemented certain procedures intended to implement the BPCIA, other processes remain in development and may be adopted by the FDA; any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

A biological product submitted for licensure under a BLA is eligible for a period of exclusivity that commences on the date of its licensure, unless its date of licensure is not considered a date of first licensure because it falls within an exclusion under the BPCIA. There is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Additionally, this period of regulatory exclusivity does not apply to companies pursuing regulatory approval via their own traditional BLA, rather than via the abbreviated pathway. Most states have enacted substitution laws that permit substitution of only interchangeable biosimilars. The extent to which a highly similar biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products that may be approved 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.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product candidates, our ability to market and derive revenue from the product candidates could be compromised.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in more restrictive labeling or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Given the nature of ADCs, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and 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. Such side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trials or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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.

In the event that any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by one of our products, any of the following adverse events could occur:

Any of these occurrences could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

While we have been granted a Fast Track Designation by the FDA for luvelta, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We have been granted a Fast Track Designation for luvelta for the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who have received one to three prior lines of systemic therapy. As part of our business strategy, we may also seek Fast Track Designation for other of our product candidates. If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug or biologic demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for FDA 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 you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, as we have for luvelta, 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, which may happen in connection with luvelta or other of our product candidates if granted Fast Track Designation.

While we have been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma and for STRO-002 for the treatment of Pediatric (CBF/GLIS) AML, if we decide to seek Orphan Drug Designation for some of our other product candidates, we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation, including the potential for orphan drug exclusivity.

We have been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma and for luvelta for the treatment of Pediatric CBF/GLIS AML and our collaborator BMS was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for CC-99712. As part of our business strategy, we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for our other product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs and therapeutic biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or therapeutic biologic as an orphan drug if it is a drug or therapeutic biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals 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 therapeutic 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 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 BLA, to market the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

Even if we obtain Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates in specific indications, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of these product candidates for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. 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 materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs or therapeutic biologics with different principal molecular structural features can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug or therapeutic biologic with the same principal molecular structural features for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug or therapeutic biologic is 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 or therapeutic biologic nor gives the drug or therapeutic biologic 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.

The tax reform legislation signed into law on December 22, 2017 reduced the amount of the qualified clinical research costs for a designated orphan product that a sponsor may claim as a credit from 50% to 25%. This may further limit the advantage and may impact our future business strategy of seeking the Orphan Drug Designation.

If we decide to pursue accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

In the future, we may decide to pursue accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the FDA’s accelerated approval program, the FDA may approve a drug or biologic for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition that provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. For drugs or biologics granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory trials are required to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence, and the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated, and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. If we were to pursue accelerated approval for a product candidate for a disease or condition, we would do so on the basis that there is no available therapy for that disease or condition or that our product candidate provides a benefit over available therapy. If standard of care were to evolve or if any of our competitors were to receive full approval on the basis of a confirmatory trial for a drug or biologic for a disease or condition for which we are seeking accelerated approval before we receive accelerated approval, the disease or condition would no longer qualify as one for which there is no available therapy, and accelerated approval of our product candidate would not occur without a showing of benefit over available therapy. Many cancer therapies rely on accelerated approval, and the treatment landscape can change quickly as the FDA converts accelerated approvals to full approvals on the basis of successful confirmatory trials. We have initiated discussions with the FDA regarding an appropriate trial design for a registration-directed trial of luvelta to potentially support an accelerated approval; however, whether any trial is sufficient to receive FDA approval under the accelerated approval pathway will depend on the safety and efficacy results of such trial and will only be determined by the FDA upon review of a submitted BLA.

Moreover, the FDA may withdraw approval of any product candidate approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example:

we disseminate false or misleading promotional materials relating to the relevant product candidate.

In addition, the FDA may terminate the accelerated approval program or change the standards under which accelerated approvals are considered and granted in response to public pressure or other concerns regarding the accelerated approval program. Changes to or termination of the accelerated approval program could prevent or limit our ability to obtain accelerated approval of any of our clinical development programs. Recently, the accelerated approval pathway has come under scrutiny within the FDA and by Congress. The FDA has put

increased focus on ensuring that confirmatory studies are conducted with diligence and, ultimately, that such studies confirm the benefit. For example, the FDA has convened its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review what the FDA has called “dangling” or delinquent accelerated approvals, where confirmatory studies have not been completed or where results did not confirm benefit, but for which marketing approval continues in effect, and some companies have subsequently voluntarily requested withdrawal of approval of their products. In addition, the Oncology Center of Excellence has recently announced Project Confirm, which is an initiative to promote the transparency of outcomes related to accelerated approvals for oncology indications and provide a framework to foster discussion, research and innovation in approval and post-marketing processes, with the goal to enhance the balance of access and verification of benefit for therapies available to patients with cancer and hematologic malignancies. In addition, the recent enactment of The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, included provisions related to the accelerated approval pathway. Pursuant to FDORA, the FDA is authorized to require a post-approval study to be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period following approval. FDORA also requires the FDA to specify conditions of any required post-approval study and requires sponsors to submit progress reports for required post-approval studies and any conditions required by the FDA. FDORA enables the FDA to initiate enforcement action for the failure to conduct with due diligence a required post-approval study, including a failure to meet any required conditions specified by the FDA or to submit timely reports.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly and annual fluctuations. Our net income or loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

If our quarterly and annual operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly and annual fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our common stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly and annual comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our restated certificate of incorporation and our restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors who are not nominated by current members of our board of directors or take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions:

In addition, our restated certificate of incorporation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for: any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, or the DGCL, our restated certificate of incorporation, or our restated bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Furthermore, our amended and restated bylaws also provide that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (a Federal Forum Provision). While the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has held that such provisions are facially valid under Delaware law, there can be no assurance that federal or state courts will follow the holding of the Delaware Supreme Court or determine that the Federal Forum Provision should be enforced in a particular case; application of the Federal Forum Provision means that suits brought by our stockholders to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act must be brought in federal court and cannot be brought in state court.

These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. Stockholders who do bring a claim in the specified courts could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim. The specified courts 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 or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our governance documents inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, Section 203 of the DGCL may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company. Section 203 imposes certain restrictions on mergers, business combinations and other transactions between us and holders of 15% or more of our common stock.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

The market price of our stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

The trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the purchase price. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the other risks described in this section and the following:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the markets for pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have been often unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the issuer. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

The future sale and issuance of equity or of debt securities that are convertible into equity will dilute our share capital.

We may choose to raise additional capital in the future, depending on market conditions, strategic considerations and operational requirements. To the extent that additional capital is raised through the sale and issuance of shares or other securities convertible into shares, our stockholders will be diluted. Future issuances of our common stock or other equity securities, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through future offerings of shares or equity securities. No prediction can be made as to the effect, if any, that future sales of common stock or the availability of common stock for future sales will have on the trading price of our common stock.

A sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock may cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. If our stockholders sell, or the market perceives that our stockholders intend to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly.

We cannot predict what effect, if any, sales of our shares in the public market or the availability of shares for sale will have on the market price of our common stock. However, future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, including shares issued upon exercise of outstanding options or warrants, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. For example, in April 2021, we entered into the Sales Agreement with Jefferies, pursuant to which, from time to time, we may offer and sell through Jefferies up to $100.0 million of our common stock pursuant to one or more “at the market” offerings. Sales of our common stock under the Sales Agreement with Jefferies could be subject to business, economic or competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which may be beyond our control, and which could cause actual results from the sale of our common stock to differ materially from expectations. Any future sales of common stock through our “at the market” offering program will result in dilution and may have a negative impact on the price of our common stock.

We also expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

General Risk Factors

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. For example, the global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets, and, in recent months, the global economy has been impacted by increasing interest rates and inflation. Likewise, the capital and credit markets may be adversely affected by the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the possibility of a wider European or global conflict, and global sanctions imposed in response thereto. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, such as the global financial crisis, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including, weakened demand for our product candidates and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our services. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, financial condition and results of operations, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our preclinical studies and clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of such analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause a decline in our stock price or trading volume.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention and affect our ability to attract and retain additional executive management and qualified board members. The additional requirements we must comply with may strain our resources and divert management’s attention from other business concerns.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Select Market, and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming, or costly, and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly, and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business and operating results. In order to comply with these requirements, we may need to hire more employees in the future or engage outside consultants, or may have difficulty attracting and retaining sufficient employees, which would increase our costs and expenses.

As a result of no longer being an emerging growth company, we have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant additional expenses that we did not previously incur in complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules implemented by the SEC. The cost of compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has required us to incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management time on compliance-related issues as we implement additional corporate governance practices and comply with reporting requirements.

We became a “smaller reporting company” as of December 31, 2022, meaning that the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates was less than $560.0 million and our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We will continue to be a smaller reporting company if either (i) the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million or (ii) our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million. Specifically, as a smaller reporting company we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10‑K and are eligible to take advantage of certain of the reduced disclosure obligations regarding compensation disclosures in 2023. As a smaller reporting company and a “non-accelerated filer”, we still need to comply with Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which will continue to require substantial management time and expense.

In addition, changing laws, regulations, and standards relating to corporate governance, stockholder litigation, and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs, making some activities more time consuming, and increasing the likelihood and expense of litigation. These laws, regulations, and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve or otherwise change over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters, higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices, and increased expenses and management attention due to actual or threatened litigation. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards (or changing interpretations of them), and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with these laws, regulations, and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be adversely affected. Being a public company and complying with the associated rules and regulations, and being subject to heightened likelihood of litigation, makes it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, the costs of which can fluctuate significantly from year-to-year due to general market conditions in obtaining such insurance, but in recent years have risen significantly, consistent with the increase in market rates. As a result, we may be required to accept reduced coverage, incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage or may be unable to obtain coverage on economically reasonable terms, or at all. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified executives and qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee, our compensation committee, and our nominating and corporate governance committee.

As a result of disclosure of information in filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition has become more visible, which may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors. If such claims are successful, our business and operating results could be adversely affected, and even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of our management and adversely affect our business and operating results.

In addition, as a result of our disclosure obligations as a public company, we could face pressure to focus on short-term results, which may adversely affect our ability to achieve long-term profitability.

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

Item 2. Properties and Facilities

Our principal executive office is located in South San Francisco, California, where we lease approximately 115,466 square feet for our corporate headquarters and for our research and development and other activities. The lease expires in December 2027.

We also have a manufacturing facility and manufacturing-support facility in San Carlos, California, where we lease a total of approximately 29,600 square feet of space in two buildings. In June 2021, we extended the lease of the manufacturing facility and manufacturing-support facility for a period of five years. The lease on such facilities will expire in July 2026 and June 2026, respectively, and both lease terms include the option to renew the lease for an additional five years.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of management, would have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity and reputational harm, and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

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

Market Information for Common Stock

Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “STRO.”

Holders of Record

As of March 27, 2023, there were approximately 72 stockholders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, for use in the operation of our business and to fund future growth. We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Payment of cash dividends, if any, in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on then-existing conditions, including our financial condition, operating results, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph shows the total stockholder’s return on an investment of $100 in cash at market close on September 27, 2018 (the first day of trading of our common stock), through December 31, 2022 for (i) our common stock, (ii) the Nasdaq Composite Index and (iii) the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index. Pursuant to applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules, all values assume reinvestment of pre-tax amount of all dividends; however, no dividends have been declared on our common stock to date. The stockholder return shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future performance, and we do not make or endorse any predictions as to future stockholder return.

This graph shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, or Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities Act, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any such filing.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters