$CUE Risk Factor changes from 00/03/09/21/2021 to 00/03/28/24/2024

Item 1A.

, “Risk Factors” of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. All of the market data used in this report involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys, and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.

Any forward-looking statement made by us in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is based only on information currently available to us and speaks only as of the date on which it is made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only risks and uncertainties we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected, and the actual outcomes of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made in this report could be materially different from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. However, we may not be able to establish such relationships, and relationships we have established may not provide the expected benefits. •We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional drug product candidates. •We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates. •We will need substantial additional financing to support our growth and ongoing operations. •Our recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. •We have a loan agreement that requires us to meet certain operating covenants and place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. Our vision is to translate nature's signals, or "cues", into protein therapeutics by generating a new class of T cell engagers for selective modulation of disease specific T cells. Our selective immune modulation approach may be deployed for treating two of the major diseases causing debilitating human suffering and mortality, namely cancer and autoimmune disease. Susceptibility to cancers is likely due to inadequate immunity against aberrant cancer cells, and inversely, autoimmune disease is due to excessive immune activation against self-tissue. Cancer and autoimmune disease are major areas of disease that affect large populations across the globe and shorten the life expectancy of those afflicted. There are approximately 20 million new cancer diagnoses worldwide each year with approximately 2 million in the United States, or U.S. Of these new cases, approximately 50% will progress to recurrent metastatic disease ultimately resulting in death. In addition, approximately 4% of the world’s population is diagnosed with an autoimmune disease resulting in approximately 24 million cases in the U.S. Recognizing that T cells, as the heavy artillery of the immune system, are regulated with a highly selective “command and control” instruction process through interactions with the antigen-presenting cells, we have engineered the Immuno-STAT platform to emulate this “command and control” system. Specificity, or the control in the “command and control” system, is achieved through the T cell receptor, or TCR, binding to a specific, targeted epitope, depicted by the yellow circle in the figure on the right below, along with a “command” co-stimulatory signal, such as interleukin 2, or IL-2, depicted as the purple pentagon in the figure on the right below. These two “cues”, or signals, when engaged concurrently, as is the case with our Immuno-STATs, are able to “dial-in” selective activation of targeted tumor-specific T cells to attack cancer while avoiding potentially harmful broad immune activation of T cells. Conversely, in autoimmunity, our autoimmune drug product candidates are designed to deploy inhibitory signals to selectively dampen autoreactive T cells while avoiding broad immune suppression that can increase susceptibility to other diseases. The figure to the left below depicts the interaction of the antigen presenting cell, or APC, with a specific T-cell as seen in nature. Immuno-STAT Platform: Emulating Nature’s Selectivity 4 Our first two oncology drug product candidates, CUE-101 and CUE-102, are exemplary programs from the IL-2 based CUE-100 series, and are representative of the HLA-A02 allele, which is prevalent in the US and western European territories. Additional HLA alleles have been developed preclinically and would allow for expansion of patient coverage globally. CUE-101 HLA-A02 is engineered for the treatment of human papillomavirus positive, or HPV+, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC, and by changing the epitope 9-amino acid sequence depicted as the yellow circle in the above illustration, we have CUE-102 HLA-A02, targeting Wilms’ Tumor 1 protein, or WT1, an oncofetal antigen known to be over-expressed in more than 20 different cancers. Based upon the clinical observations to date, we believe we have demonstrated that our Immuno-STAT platform can be deployed across a wide spectrum of cancers by selectively activating the patient’s own immune system to combat cancer. We have also developed drug product candidates designed to address a broad spectrum of autoimmune disease by dampening or turning down self-reactive T cells that attack a patient’s body. We have a strategic collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Ono, focused on the development of CUE-401 for the potential treatment of a wide spectrum of autoimmune disease through the induction and expansion of regulatory T cells, or Tregs Immuno-STAT Platform for Oncology: IL-2 based CUE-100 Series - Enhancing the Body’s Capacity to Fight Cancer Realizing the potential promise of cancer immunotherapy requires effective and well-tolerated activation and enhancement of the body’s intrinsic cancer-fighting capacity. Due to the extremely small fraction of a patient’s entire T cell repertoire that is specific to that patient’s cancer, which is estimated to be less than 0.1% of the patient’s total T cell population, we believe that non-specific modulation of all T cells with therapies such as recombinant IL-2 (or variants thereof), checkpoint inhibitors, or CPIs, and bi-specific T cell engagers, will continue to provide sub-optimal outcomes for the majority of patients, unless these modalities can be targeted towards tumor-specific T cells. By selectively targeting, activating and expanding tumor-specific T cells, we believe our IL-2-based CUE-100 series could solve the foundational problem of how to selectively activate and amplify only those tumor-specific T cells without broadly activating the vast majority of tumor-irrelevant cells, thus potentially achieving well-tolerated and therapeutically effective therapies. This strategy allows for the generation of a therapeutic index for immune activation signals, such as IL-2, by selectively targeting disease-relevant T cells over the vast majority of tumor-irrelevant T cells. We believe that our Immuno-STAT and derivative drug product candidates may offer important clinical advantages over competing immunotherapy approaches, including: •Ability to selectively target disease specific T cells and control the quantity and properties of the co-stimulatory signal, in contrast to global activation through systemic, non-selective signaling that is common to therapies such as rIL-2 and bi-specific antibodies and is associated with poor tolerability; •“Off-the-Shelf” and ready to use biologics that specifically target and selectively modulate disease relevant T cells; •Utilization of industry standard development and production process that support a cost-of-goods and supply chain similar to monoclonal antibodies, providing for timely and efficient drug supply; •Standard delivery format (intravenous or subcutaneous) with a convenient dosing schedule (weekly to monthly) that can be administered by specialists and community-based physicians; •Administration directly into the patient’s body without involving extraction and ex-vivo manipulation of T cells (e.g., cell therapy) or rigorous pre- and post- therapy conditioning of the patient; and •Access to a broad set of disease targets and patient populations with high unmet medical need. Immuno-therapy Challenges: Exemplified by the Non-selective Nature of IL-2 The challenges of effective and well tolerated immunotherapy, exemplified by current IL-2 therapies, center around a lack of selectivity and indiscriminate immune activation, resulting in poor tolerability and limited therapeutic dosing ranges. The primary challenge with wild-type IL-2 for example, as well as the different IL-2 variants in development, is that these molecules will indiscriminately engage the vast majority of the patient’s T cells, most of which do not recognize a tumor as foreign and thus have no demonstrable effect on the patient’s cancer. To realize the full potential of co-stimulatory molecules, such as IL-2, for cancer therapy, we engineered Immuno-STATs to take advantage of the specificity of the TCR allowing for selective activation and expansion of disease-relevant T cells with the concurrent engagement of a co-stimulatory molecule. The CUE-100 series Immuno-STATs are designed to selectively deliver modified IL-2 to tumor-specific T cells while avoiding the systemic activation of all other non-target T 5 cells. Our IL-2 variant is affinity-attenuated, or modified to reduce the binding force, such that it selectively cooperates with signals from the TCRs of tumor-specific T cells that bind to the peptide human leukocyte antigen, or pHLA, component of the Immuno-STAT. If the TCR is not engaged, as would be the case with the majority of non-tumor-specific T cells, then the signal from the reduced-affinity IL-2 variant by itself is insufficient to fully activate the non-tumor-specific T cells. Through the concurrent signaling from the pHLA/TCR complex (signal 1 in the graphic below) and IL-2 co-stimulatory signaling (signal 2 in the graphic below), we believe the CUE-100 series Immuno-STATs enable the selective activation and amplification of cancer-relevant T cells. In addition, we believe the modularity of the CUE-100 series will allow us to generate diverse therapeutic molecules containing different tumor antigens to target many types of cancer. The CUE-100 series is an oncology focused series based on IL-2 as a co-stimulatory moiety, and it is our belief that we have established foundational data supporting the premise that the CUE-100 series drug product candidates have the potential to solve the major challenge of therapeutically deploying IL-2 through the selective targeting of tumor-specific T cells. As such, we also believe the CUE-100 series holds the potential of therapeutically being a best-in-class approach due to its favorable tolerability profile, as we have not observed capillary leak syndrome nor significant cytokine release syndrome to date. We believe the clinical data from our CUE-101 and CUE-102 ongoing trials support the premise that we have generated a clinically active and well-tolerated therapeutic capable of selectively delivering IL-2 to the relevant T cell population and have identified a range of doses achieving clinical benefit with favorable tolerability. We have demonstrated clinical validation and proof of concept through the treatment of over 100 patients, both as monotherapy and in combination with standard of care, or SoC, CPI therapy, such as Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. We have evidence of monotherapy activity in our ongoing clinical trial in late-stage cancer patients who received CUE-101 every three weeks, with some of those patients having received CUE-101 for up to 24 months. In addition, to date in our ongoing clinical trial, CUE-101 in combination with KEYTRUDA has demonstrated an overall response rate, or ORR, and median progression free survival, or mPFS, that compares favorably to historical data. CUE-100 Series: IL-2 Based T Cell Engagers The structural design of our IL-2 based CUE-100 series antibody-based molecules enables modularity of the various components. A key feature is the ability to readily change the targeting epitope (the epitope is represented by the yellow circle in the above image). In addition to their modular design, we believe CUE-100 series molecules have strong manufacturing metrics, including expression levels, cost of goods, and drug product stability. As seen in the image below, our first two drug product candidates exemplify the platform’s modular nature and intended efficiencies. Based on the premise that CUE-102 shares the same core molecular framework as CUE-101, except for the T cell epitope pertaining to HPV-E7 versus WT-1, its IND was supported by clinical and safety data from the ongoing CUE-101 monotherapy trial and did not require additional 6 IND-enabling toxicology studies. This supports our premise that each CUE-100 series Immuno-STAT molecule provides further de-risking and potential accelerated development of subsequent drug product candidates. Platform Modularity Engineered to Enable Targeting of Many Different Cancers Our development strategy with our first drug product candidate from the CUE-100 series, CUE-101, is focused on demonstrating clinical activity as a monotherapy in the second line and beyond, or 2L+, setting, where the cancer has become highly unstable and life expectancy typically continues to diminish with each additional line of therapy. We believe that the data generated in our monotherapy 2L+ trial , described below, demonstrates clear evidence of single agent anti-tumor activity and underscores the mechanistic rationale for combining with check point blockade in the 1L SoC setting, thereby providing a path forward for a broader opportunity to reach and benefit a greater number of patients. Importantly, recent scientific data has implicated IL-2 in generation of T cells with superior attributes, including “stemness-like” properties. These attributes may further enhance the long-lasting therapeutic properties of the CUE-100 series and further support application of this approach in earlier lines of therapy, such as the adjuvant setting, representing a significant market potential. CUE-101 is our most advanced clinical stage asset and is being clinically investigated for the treatment of human papillomavirus positive, or HPV+, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC, in patients compatible with the human leukocyte antigen, HLA-A02. Our first Phase 1 clinical trials are investigating CUE-101 in the treatment of R/M, HPV+ HNSCC as a monotherapy and in combination with KEYTRUDA. We received Fast Track Designation of CUE-101 for the treatment of recurrent metastatic, or R/M, HPV+ HNSCC, as both a monotherapy in 2L+ patients and in combination with KEYTRUDA, the current SoC for 1L R/M HNSCC patients. We also have ongoing and planned investigator sponsored clinical trials in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. This series of trials allows CUE-101 to be investigated in multiple patient populations with broad market opportunities. Both the CUE-101 monotherapy trial in 2L+ R/M HNSCC and CUE-101 trial in 1L in combination with KEYTRUDA have completed enrollment and have demonstrated metrics of clinical activity. In January 2024, we met with the FDA in a Type B meeting to clarify potential paths to registrational trials in both the 2L+ monotherapy and 1L combination settings. We believe this clarification on registrational paths represents an important milestone, providing further risk reduction along with defined resource requirements. In 2023, we completed enrollment of 25 patients in the expansion phase of our combination Phase 1b clinical trial of CUE-101 at the 4 mg/kg dose level in combination with KEYTRUDA. We also continue to follow patients in the monotherapy portion of our Phase 1 clinical trial of CUE-101 at the dose of 4 mg/kg for the treatment of 2L+ R/M HNSCC patients. These patients previously received and failed several prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy as well as CPIs, such as KEYTRUDA. We have observed robust expansion of the targeted tumor-specific, HPV E7 specific, T cells in the peripheral blood of patients treated with CUE-101, as shown in the panels on the left below. In addition, pre- and post-treatment paired patient biopsies showed increased tumor infiltrating T cells following CUE-101 treatment as evidenced by the significant increase in activated granzyme B+ cytolytic killer T cells, indicated by the yellow-orange staining, in the right panel below. 7 CUE-101 Monotherapy Tumor Specific T Cell Expansion and Infiltration In our 2L+ monotherapy Phase 1 trial, CUE-101 has demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity, along with a favorable tolerability profile. Of the 20 patients in the monotherapy Phase 1 clinical trial treated at the dose of 4 mg/kg, we observed a confirmed partial response, or PR, lasting for more than 36 weeks and 6 patients with durable stable disease, defined as stable disease on at least two consecutive post-treatment scans lasting at least 12 weeks. One patient with stable disease has had no evidence of tumor growth for 24 months and has had no detectable evidence of circulating HPV DNA in their blood. This data supports the possibility that this patient has a histopathological complete response, i.e., qualitatively no remaining viable tumor, while the quantitative scan may have been measuring dead, fibrotic tissue. This patient recently reached the end of the 24-month treatment period of the trial as defined by the clinical trial protocol. In this monotherapy trial, we have observed a median overall survival, or mOS, of 20.8 months in this 2L+ patient population (as shown below). Data generated from historical reports on second line patients that received CPI therapy (KEYTRUDA or IPDIVO), demonstrated a mOS of 8.4 months and 7.5 months respectively (as shown below). We continue to follow the patients treated in the monotherapy trial and anticipate this overall survival data to continue to mature throughout 2024. 8 Overall Survival in CUE-101 Phase 1 Monotherapy 4 mg/kg Patients During the fourth quarter of 2023, we completed enrollment of our Phase 1b trial of CUE-101 in combination with SoC CPI, KEYTRUDA. The waterfall plot below is an update of the data that we presented at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer on November 4, 2023. Of the 24 evaluable patients treated with combination therapy of 4 mg/kg of CUE-101 and 200 mg of KEYTRUDA given every three weeks, we observed one confirmed complete response and ten confirmed partial responses, as well as seven patients with durable stable disease. The overall response rate, or ORR, for these 24 patients is 46% with a disease control rate of 75%. This ORR represents a greater than doubling of the historical ORR of 19% that was observed with KEYTRUDA alone, as reported in the KEYNOTE 048 study. Importantly, these responses include multiple patients with low PD-L1 expression (combined positive score less than 20), a patient population known to be less likely to respond to KEYTRUDA. 9 Best Change from Baseline and Response in Patients Treated with 4 mg/kg of CUE-101 in Combination with KEYTRUDA We continue to follow the patients treated with 4mg/kg of CUE-101 in the combination trial and anticipate providing a further update and substantive analysis of this ongoing trial at the upcoming scientific American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in June 2024. We believe the observed evidence of combination activity of CUE-101 with KEYTRUDA is most likely due to their complementary mechanisms of action, specifically, CUE-101’s mechanism of selectively activating and expanding tumor-specific T cells and KEYTRUDA’s mechanism of checkpoint signaling blockade, that enables the anti-tumor T cells to effectively attack and kill the tumor cells. Furthermore, we believe that CUE-101’s evidence of clinical activity and mechanism of action have the potential to expand patient reach and to enhance the clinical activity of KEYTRUDA as well as other CPIs, since the presence of expanded tumor-specific T cells is an obligatory pre-requisite for anti-PD-1 therapy. mPFS denotes the timeframe in which patients remain on drug until the observation of tumor growth goes beyond 20% from baseline. The mPFS of the 25 patients treated with CUE-101 and KEYTRUDA in our ongoing combination trials is 8.3 months, which compares favorably to the historical mPFS of 3.2 months observed with KEYTRUDA monotherapy in the historical, third-party KEYNOTE-48 trial. 10 Increase of mPFS in 1L Patients Treated with 4mg/kg of CUE-101 in Combination with KEYTRUDA Importantly, we believe that the CUE-101 clinical data generated to date reduces the risk profile of the entire IL-2 based CUE-100 series due to the core molecular framework of the CUE-100 series remaining essentially the same for each drug product candidate, except for the nine amino acid peptide, or targeting peptide epitope, within the major histocompatibility complex, or MHC, pocket. This supports our premise that each CUE-100 series Immuno-STAT drug product candidate provides further de-risking and potential acceleration of subsequent drug product candidates. CUE-102, the second HLA-A02 drug product candidate in our CUE-100 series, targets Wilms’ Tumor 1 protein, or WT1, an oncofetal antigen known to be over-expressed in more than 20 different cancers, including both solid tumors (such as colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic and lung) and hematologic malignancies (such as acute myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes). We are conducting a Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial of CUE-102 in second line R/M WT1+ colorectal, gastric, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer. Similar to CUE-101, CUE-102 may be investigated in multiple patient populations including, as a combination with current standard of care therapies, in first line R/M cancers, as well as, R/M locally advanced settings. Both the CUE-101 monotherapy in second line R/M HNSCC and first line in combination with KEYTRUDA have completed enrollment and have demonstrated metrics of clinical activity. Consistent with our preclinical datasets, selective and robust expansion of WT1+ specific T cells has been observed in treated patients in our ongoing trial. As depicted in the two representative examples from patients treated in the ongoing Phase 1 monotherapy trial shown below, increased frequency of WT1 specific CD8+ T cells were observed following CUE-102 treatment. These representative examples from two patients in the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial plot the increase in WT1 specific CD8+ T cells from preliminary analyses following direct flow staining of PBMCs. Expansion of these WT1 tumor specific T cells is expected to enhance anti-tumor immunity with the potential to drive tumor reductions. 11 Selective Expansion of WT1-Specific T Cells Demonstrated in Patients Treated with CUE-102 The graphs below show reductions in tumor burden that have been observed in patients treated in the dose-escalation portion of the Phase 1 CUE-102 monotherapy clinical trial. As shown in the graph on the left, a patient with gastric cancer that progressed on three prior lines of therapy, including a CPI, experienced a decrease in the sum of three target lesions of 34% at week 36, as depicted by the blue line crossing the -30% hash line in green. This gastric cancer patient remained on treatment as of the data cut-off date. The graph on the right shows a reduction in tumor burden observed in an ovarian cancer patient in the 2 mg/kg dose-escalation cohort as depicted by the blue line intersecting the -30% hash line in green. Both of these patients subsequently experienced progressive disease due to the emergence of new lesions. We have also observed disease control in patients with pancreatic cancer, including a pancreatic cancer patient who, as of the data cut-off date, remained on treatment and exhibited durable stable disease for greater than six months. Given the encouraging signs of clinical activity observed across all four indications in the Phase 1 dose escalation portion of the trial, we anticipate conducting the Phase 1 expansion portion of the monotherapy trial in more than one WT1 positive cancer type. Reduction of Target Lesions in Patients Treated with CUE-102 As discussed above, the ability of CUE-101 to selectively activate and amplify targeted tumor specific T cells, as observed in our Phase 1 combination trial, complements the mechanism of CPIs. We are now expanding our efforts into cancers that have historically not been responsive to CPI. The tumor types we are expanding to with CUE-102 are denoted by the red circles on the chart below. 12 Immuno-STATs Potential for Expanding Patient Reach and Enhancing Efficacy for CPIs In addition to the CUE-100 series, we have leveraged the modularity and versatility of the Immuno-STAT platform to develop additional biologic series outside of oncology, including CUE-300, CUE-400, and CUE-500, which are specifically designed through rational protein engineering to address distinct therapeutic approaches for treating autoimmune disease. The CUE-300 series incorporates the inhibitory PD-L1 co-modulator for selective inhibition of the autoreactive T cell repertoire. The CUE-500 series represents a novel approach to develop a bispecific Immuno-STAT that can selectively direct memory T cells to deplete B cells, which has been demonstrated through the ablation of B cells with CAR T therapy and is now recognized as an important axis for treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. In 2023, we announced a strategic collaboration and option agreement with Ono, or the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, to further advance CUE-401 for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The strategic collaboration with Ono is an important advancement in our corporate development plan to seek third-party support to further develop the CUE-400 series and provides dedicated resources and capabilities to help advance CUE-401 toward the clinic. Under the terms of the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, Ono paid us an upfront payment and agreed to fully fund all research activities related to CUE-401 through a specified option period. During this option period, we will be responsible for the research and development of CUE-401. Upon Ono’s exercise of its option to license CUE-401, we will receive an option exercise payment and be eligible for development and commercial milestone payments up to an aggregate of approximately $220 million, as well as tiered royalties on sales. Upon any such exercise, Ono will receive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize CUE-401, with us retaining a 50% co-development and co-commercialization right in the United States. Our decision to elect the co-development and co-commercialization option may be made within 30 days of Ono’s option exercise to license CUE-401. The amount paid by Ono to us for the option exercise and future milestone payments will vary based upon our decision to exercise the co-development and co-commercialization option. CUE-401 Designed for Selective Treg Induction and Expansion CUE-401 has the two key signals, IL-2 and transforming growth factor beta, or TGF beta, for selective induction of Tregs. The structure of CUE-401 is similar to that utilized in the CUE-100 series and incorporates the same IL-2 variant. The TGF beta variant was designed to improve the safety profile, enhance manufacturability, and mechanistically align with IL-2 signaling for effective Treg induction and expansion. Co-delivery of IL-2 and TGF beta signals in naïve CD4+ T cells results in the induction of Fox P3 which is the master gene transcription factor for Tregs. 13 The panels below demonstrate iTreg induction in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and exemplify the need for both the IL-2 and TGF beta signals to induce Tregs. As shown below, neither IL-2 nor TGF beta alone can generate substantial numbers of new Tregs. In contrast, CUE-401, which has both IL-2 and TGF beta, demonstrated in preclinical studies the ability to generate a robust population of Fox P3+ Tregs by delivering both required signals. CUE-401 Harnessed Multiple Signals to Induce Tregs in Preclinical Studies We have generated preclinical data in our labs and in collaboration with Dr. Richard DiPaolo of St. Louis University supporting the premise that CUE-401 may be able to expand and induce Tregs. The resulting Tregs are functionally suppressive and maintain a stable phenotype, whereby CUE-401 treatment suppressed the proliferation of self-reactive T cells in a mouse model of autoimmune gastritis. The therapeutic potential of CUE-401 has also been observed in a T cell transfer model of autoimmune gastritis, wherein treatment with CUE-401 led to a prolonged suppression of self-reactive T cells and significantly reduced pathological evidence of disease in the stomachs of treated mice. As shown in the figure below, short-term treatment with CUE-401 resulted in long-term protection from autoimmune gastritis and tissue destruction in a pre-clinical animal model. The histopathology, as shown on the left side, and the compiled gastritis scores, as shown on the right side, demonstrated significant protection from tissue destruction in animals treated with CUE-401. 14 Short-term Treatment with CUE-401 Resulted in Significant Long-Term Protection from Gastritis and Tissue Destruction Through our CUE-500 series, we are developing Immuno-STATs designed to selectively harness the protective anti-viral T cell repertoire (virus-specific T cells, or VSTs) and re-direct them to target and deplete B cells. We believe that recent third-party clinical data in autoimmune patients that demonstrated durable long-term efficacy when treated with CD19-CAR-T cells to deplete pathogenic B cells provides strong mechanistic evidence for the superiority of T cell-mediated B cell depletion versus prior approaches with antibody-dependent B cell depletion (such as anti-CD19, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies). We believe that our approach to deploy a biologic to selectively re-direct “killer” T cells, while avoiding the systemic engagement and activation of all T cells, to essentially accomplish T cell-mediated B cell depletion has similarities to what has been exemplified with CD19-CAR-T cell therapy approaches. We believe that addressing this important mechanism of autoimmune diseases with a biologic will offer significant advantages over cell therapy-based strategies. The figures below highlight the design and mechanism of action of the CUE-500 series. The CUE-500 series builds upon the de-risking accomplished with the CUE-100 series (>100 patients treated with CUE-101 and CUE-102) and leverages the same modified IL-2. This further supports our premise that each CUE-100 series Immuno-STAT molecule provides further de-risking and potential acceleration of subsequent drug product candidate. CUE-500 Series: Leveraging a derisked, validated framework for T cell-mediated B cell depletion 15 CUE-500 Series: Mechanism of Action Our Business Strategy Our primary objective is to provide patients suffering from cancer and autoimmune disease with dramatically improved therapeutic outcomes through our platform of biologic drug product candidates. Our approach enables a therapeutic index for IL-2 to be achieved, opening the possibility of deploying our platform to treat a variety of cancers both hematologic and solid. •The expanded patient reach and enhanced therapeutic benefit we have observed to date in our Phase 1 combination trial with KEYTRUDA support our underlying premise that our CUE-100 series complements the mechanism of checkpoint blockade by activating and increasing the targeted T cell population directly in the patient's body. We believe this supportive and foundational data enhances the attractiveness of CUE-101 for further development through registrational trial. •We continue to develop supportive clinical data demonstrating the clinical activity of CUE-102 as a monotherapy and holding promise for enabling market penetration and expansion for CPI that, to date, have not been successful with approval in the majority of cancers overexpressing WT-1. Seek strategic partnerships and collaborations for our programs outside of oncology •As a result of our growing body of supportive data and our focus of resources on corporate prioritization, we believe we are well positioned for strategic alignment with potential corporate partners to provide further capital support of our clinical programs through registration and marketing, if approved. CUE-401 is a bispecific protein, specifically designed for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. We presently have an ongoing strategic collaboration and option agreement with Ono to develop CUE-401 towards potential selection of a drug product candidate for clinical development and potential co-development and co-commercialization within the United States. Importantly, the partnership with Ono 16 represents value potential for our shareholders as CUE-401 has the potential to treat numerous autoimmune diseases. We hold an exclusive worldwide license, with the right to sublicense, import, make, have made, use, provide, offer to sell, and sell all products, processes and services that use the Patents, including certain technology received from Einstein related thereto, which we refer to as the Licensed Products. The Einstein License is a royalty-bearing license obligating us to pay a percentage of proceeds received from sales of categories of Licensed Products at low single digit rates. We have also agreed to share a portion of our proceeds that we derive from other agreements, like sublicense agreements, that we may enter into relating to the Licensed Products. The percentage of such proceeds that we are required to pay Einstein ranges from the low to mid-teens, depending on how far we have developed a Licensed Product before we enter into an agreement relating to the Licensed Product. These percentages are reduced for sales of Licensed Products in countries where a competing product exists and for products or services involving the use or incorporation of technology received from Einstein relating to synapse for targeted T cell activation molecules, receptor ligand identification or platforms for T cell monitoring. In addition to our obligation to pay royalties based upon a percentage of proceeds from sales of Licensed Products, we have also agreed to pay Einstein annual maintenance fees. The maintenance payments are creditable against any royalty payments we pay under the Einstein License. For the year ended December 31, 2023, there were no payments related to Einstein license maintenance fees under the Einstein License, as they were creditable against actual payments owed to Einstein during the twelve-month period. Under the Einstein License, we are also obligated to make milestone payments corresponding to: (i) approval of the first IND by the FDA or foreign equivalent for a Licensed Product; (ii) approval of any subsequent IND application or foreign equivalent for a “new indication” for a Licensed Product; (iii) initiation of Phase 2 clinical trials or foreign equivalent on a Licensed Product; (iv) initiation of Phase 2 clinical trials or foreign equivalent for a “new indication” for a Licensed Product; (v) initiation of Phase 3 clinical trials or foreign equivalent on a Licensed Product; (vi) initiation of Phase 3 clinical trials or foreign equivalent for a “new indication” for a Licensed Product; (vii) the first commercial sale of a Licensed Product; (viii) the first commercial sale of each “new indication” for one of our previously approved Licensed Products; and (ix) cumulative sales of certain Licensed Products reaching certain threshold amounts. The aggregate amount of milestone payments made under the Einstein License may equal up to $1.85 million for each Licensed Product and up to $1.85 million for each new indication of a Licensed Product. Additionally, the aggregate amount of one-time milestone payments based on cumulative sales of all Licensed Products may equal up to $5.75 million. At December 31, 2023, we have made payments totaling $1,233,000 since inception with respect to achievement of these milestones. In addition to our obligations to make the cash payments to Einstein described above, under the Einstein License we issued Einstein 671,572 shares of our Common Stock immediately prior to completion of the initial public offering of our common stock completed on December 27, 2017. The Einstein License expires upon the expiration of our last obligation to make royalty payments to Einstein, unless terminated earlier under the provisions thereof. Under the Einstein License, we will be obligated to make royalty payments to Einstein, with respect to certain Licensed Products, for the longer of 15 years from the first sale of such products in each country or for the duration of any market exclusivity period granted by a regulatory agency for such product and, with respect to certain Licensed Products sold by sublicensees, the longer of 10 years from the first sale of such products in each country or for so long as the sublicensee agrees to pay royalties on such products. We have the right to terminate the Einstein License at any time upon 60 days’ written notice to Einstein; provided, however, that we will lose intellectual property rights related to the Patents if we choose to terminate the Einstein License in this manner. Each party has the right to terminate the Einstein License if the other party is in default or breach of any condition of the Einstein License with a right to cure any such breach within 60 days from receipt of notice of such default or breach, unless the other party has disputed the alleged breach in good faith. Either party can also terminate the Einstein License if the other party voluntarily files for bankruptcy or other similar insolvency proceedings, makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or is the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy petition that is not dismissed within 90 days. If we fail to pay any sum that is due and payable to Einstein within 30 days after receiving written notice of our default from Einstein, then Einstein has the option of terminating the Einstein License unless we pay within 45 days of such notice all delinquent sums with interest. Einstein may also terminate the Einstein License in the event we are convicted of certain felonies relating to the manufacture or use of Licensed Products. 17 The Einstein License also obligates us to meet certain due diligence requirements, or the Diligence Milestones, as follows: •update our research and development plan annually; •initiate Phase 1 clinical trials on a Licensed Product within a number of years from the Effective Date; •initiate Phase 2 clinical trials on a Licensed Product within a number of years from the Effective Date; •initiate Phase 3 clinical trials on a Licensed Product within a number of years from the Effective Date; •submit an application for FDA approval to market and sell a Licensed Product within a number of years from the Effective Date; •have our first commercial sale of an FDA Licensed Product within a number of years from the Effective Date; and •spend a minimum amount per year on product development until our first commercial sale of a Licensed Product. If we fail to meet any of the Diligence Milestones, Einstein will have the right to terminate the Einstein License if such Diligence Milestone is not satisfied within thirty days from receiving a written notice of default from Einstein. Under certain circumstances and upon prior notice to Einstein, we may have the right to an additional extension of our Diligence Milestones if, despite our commercially reasonable efforts we are not able to satisfy the Phase 3 clinical trial Diligence Milestone or any subsequent Diligence Milestone. As of the date of this report, we have met all required Diligence Milestones., or LG Chem, related to the development of Immuno-STATs focused in the field of oncology. In addition, LG Chem has the option to select one additional Immuno-STAT for an oncology target, or an Additional Immuno-STAT, for an exclusive worldwide development and commercialization license. We refer to such agreement, as amended, as the Global License and Collaboration Agreement. On April 30, 2021, LG Chem’s option pursuant to the Global License and Collaboration Agreement expired.0 million non-refundable, non-creditable upfront payment and purchased approximately $5.0 million of shares of our common stock at a price per share equal to a 20% premium to the volume weighted-average closing price per share over the 30 trading day period immediately prior to the effective date of the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement. We are also eligible to receive additional aggregate payments of approximately $400 million if certain research, development, regulatory and commercial milestones are successfully achieved. On May 16, 2019, we earned a $2.5 million milestone payment for the FDA’s acceptance of the IND for our lead drug product candidate, CUE-101, pursuant to the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement. On December 7, 2020, we earned a $1.25 million milestone payment on the selection of a preclinical candidate pursuant to the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement. On November 23, 2021, we earned a $3.0 million milestone payment on the confirmation of Collaboration Product candidate. In return for performing CMC process development, LG Chem is eligible to receive low-single digit percentage royalty payments on the sales of Collaboration Products sold in all countries outside the LG Chem Territory. As of December 31, 2023, we recorded approximately $19. The majority of the research phase of the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement was substantially complete on March 31, 2022. To date, LG Chem has selected one additional cancer antigen, WT1, which is the focus of the CUE-102 research program. We are currently developing two Collaboration Products with LG Chem pursuant to the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement. Our Collaboration Agreement with Ono On February 22, 2023, we entered into the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, with Ono to further develop CUE-401 and provide dedicated resources and capabilities to help advance CUE-401 toward the clinic. Under the terms of the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, Ono paid us an upfront payment and agreed to fully fund all research activities related to CUE-401 through a specified option period. During this option period, we will be responsible for the research and development of CUE-401. Upon Ono’s exercise of its option to license CUE-401, we will receive an option exercise payment and be eligible for development and commercial milestone payments up to an aggregate of approximately $220 million, as well as tiered royalties on sales. Upon any such exercise, Ono will receive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize CUE-401, with us retaining a 50% co-development and co-commercialization right in the United States. Our decision to elect the co-development and co-commercialization option may be made within 30 days of Ono’s option exercise to license CUE-401. The amount paid by Ono to us for the option exercise and future milestone payments will vary based upon our decision to exercise the co-development and co-commercialization option. Under the terms of the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, we will perform research activities related to CUE-401 through a specified option period of 24 months, or the Research Term. During this Research Term, we will be responsible for the execution of scientific investigation, nonclinical, preclinical, and clinical drug research and development activities designed to progress CUE-401 toward a potential IND and regulatory approval, collectively referred to as R&D. Ono is responsible for the funding of R&D activities performed by us. Per the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, as consideration for the R&D activities performed by us, Ono (i) made a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable upfront payment of $3.0 million to us and (ii) will reimburse us for all costs incurred in conducting research, including (a) pass through costs from third party contractors and (b) full time employee salaries capped at $2.1 million in the first 18 months of the Research Term. The term of the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement extends until the expiration of the Research Term, which cannot exceed a 24-month period. We have forecasted that we will be able to complete the R&D activities within the 19 first 18 months of the Research Term based on the initial research and development plans we have established. We received the $3.0 million upfront payment in March 2023. Aside from the $3.0 million upfront payment and funding related to pass through costs, we do not believe that any variable consideration should be included in the transaction price as of December 31, 2023. We will re-evaluate the transaction price, including the estimated variable consideration included in the transaction price and all constrained amounts, in each reporting period and as other changes in circumstances occur.2 million related to the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement and recorded short-term research and development liabilities of approximately $2.1 million on our balance sheet. We believe that these intellectual property rights will affect our ability to compete effectively with others. We also rely and will rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities to develop, maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We seek to protect these, in part, through confidentiality agreements with certain employees, consultants, advisors and other parties. As of December 31, 2023, we owned or had licensed 94 issued patents (including 17 issued U.S. patents), 75 pending patent applications in the United States (including 6 pending U.S. provisional patent applications), 9 pending international PCT applications and 268 pending foreign patent applications. We plan to spend considerable resources and focus in the future on obtaining U.S. and foreign patents. We have and will continue to actively protect our intellectual property. No assurances can be given that any of our patent applications will result in the issuance of a patent or that the examination process will not require us to narrow our claims. In addition, any issued patents may be contested, circumvented, found unenforceable or invalid, and we may not be able to successfully enforce our patent rights against third parties. No assurance can be given that others will not independently develop a similar or competing technology or design around any patents that may be issued to us. We intend to expand our international operations in the future and our patent portfolio, copyright, trademark and trade secret protections may not be available or may be limited in foreign countries. Each of our patents, if and when granted, will generally have a term of 20 years from its respective U.S. or international non-provisional priority filing date, subject to available extensions. Oncology Competition We compete with other companies working to develop cytokines as cancer immunotherapies, as well as those developing other immunotherapeutic modalities, including monoclonal antibodies, bi-specific antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, cell therapies, oncolytic viruses, and vaccines with application in treating patients living with cancer. Potential competitors in the cytokine-based therapy space include Asher Bio, Aulos Bio, BioNTech SE, Medicenna Therapeutics, Moderna, Inc., Mural Oncology, Roche Holding AG, Synthekine, Werewolf Therapeutics, and Xilio Therapeutics. In the cell therapy space, potential competitors include Adaptimmune Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis AG. In the CPI space, potential competitors include AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., and Roche Holding AG. 20 We believe that our approach provides us with a competitive advantage through selective delivery of immune activating signals, coupling engineered cytokines (i.e., IL-2) to a targeting moiety (i.e., peptide-MHC complex) for enhanced activation of cancer-specific CD8+ T cells. Autoimmune Competition We compete with other companies working to develop cytokines to restore immune balance, as well as those developing other therapeutic modalities, including monoclonal antibodies, bi-specific antibodies, cell therapies, and vaccines with application in treating patients living with autoimmune disease. Potential competitors in the cytokine-based therapy space include Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., Nektar Therapeutics, and Sanofi S.A. In the regulatory T cell therapies space, potential competitors include Abata Therapeutics, Coya Therapeutics, Quell Therapeutics, Sangamo Therapeutics, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. Many of our competitors have greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Additionally, many competitors have greater experience in product discovery and development, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals, and commercialization capabilities, which may provide them with a competitive advantage. We expect any drug product candidate that we commercialize, either independently or with our strategic partners, will compete with existing, market-leading products and believe that our ability to compete will depend on our ability to execute on the following objectives: •design, develop and commercialize products that are superior to other products in the market in terms of, among other things, safety, efficacy, convenience, or price; •obtain patent and/or other proprietary protection for our processes and drug product candidates; •obtain required regulatory approvals; •obtain favorable reimbursement, formulary and guideline status; and •collaborate with others in the design, development and commercialization of our products. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and/or safety in order to obtain approval, to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer. Government Regulation and Licensure of Products Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, sales, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post‑approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. The processes for obtaining marketing 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. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor.S. Preclinical Studies Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, a product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence. As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical studies in a timely manner. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application. When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product. There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests, it must make that policy publicly available. Although these requirements were rolled out over time, they have now come into full effect. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act. Human Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent. 23 Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or data monitoring committee, or DMC. This group may recommend continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated check points based on certain available data from the study to which only the DSMB or DMC has access.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well‑controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a biologic; such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.” In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need. In March 2022, the FDA released final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology biological product development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by the FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to product development and reduce developmental costs and time. In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these 24 requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. In January 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance setting out its policies for the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s, or ICH’s, recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials. Finally, sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’, or HHS’s, long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA has issued several pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Clinical Studies Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval In connection with our clinical development program, we may conduct trials at sites outside the United States. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. The acceptance by the FDA of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of US approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. Interactions with FDA During the Clinical Development Program Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted annually within 60 days of the anniversary dates that the IND went into effect and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. These reports must include a development safety update report, or DSUR. In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the 25 FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-BLA meetings, as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues, which should be limited to no more than two focused topics and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan. The FDA is required to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although the FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA. Compliance with GMP Requirements The FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with GMPs. The GMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with GMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk‑based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. 26 Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. The FDA’s regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from GMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product. The BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is $4,048,695 for an application requiring clinical data. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that the FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information and studies, and the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the applicant and set deadlines for responses thereto. The FDA will also inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with a submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. Additionally, before approving an application, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the data submitted in support of the application. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Decisions on BLAs After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, or an approval letter. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine whether there is substantial evidence that the product is effective and that expected benefits of the proposed product outweigh its potential risks to patients. This assessment is informed by the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or 27 Class 2. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has two months to review a Class 1 resubmission and six months to review a Class 2 resubmission. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in the complete response letter have been addressed. For those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the agency has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution. The FDA may limit the approved indications for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product 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 patent registries. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Expedited Review Programs The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Product candidates are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review. Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval. •Breakthrough therapy designation. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review. •Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review. •Accelerated approval. Biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval 28 perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials. With passage of FDORA, in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded; require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed); and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of a new drug application, or NDA, or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The agency indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval. •Regenerative advanced therapy. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. None of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but each may help expedite the development or approval process governing product candidates. Project Optimus Project Optimus is an initiative of the Oncology Center of Excellence, or OCE, at the FDA. This project focuses on dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development, and whether the current paradigm based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics leads to doses and schedules of molecularly targeted therapies that provide more toxicity without additional efficacy, among other things. In Project Optimus, drug developers have the opportunity to meet with the FDA’s Oncology Review Divisions early in their development programs, well before conducting trials intended for registration, to discuss dose-finding and dose optimization. The program thus allows sponsors to develop strategies for dose finding and dose optimization that leverages nonclinical and clinical data in dose selection, including randomized evaluations of a range of doses in trials, with the objective of performing these studies as early as possible in the development program to bring promising new therapies to patients. This approach will allow FDA to evaluate clinical data as soon as the results of a clinical trial become available with the objective of reviewing and approving a new indication soon after a sponsor files the application. The first of these pilot programs, Real-Time Oncology Review, or RTOR, focuses on early submission of data that are the most relevant to assessing the product’s safety and effectiveness. RTOR allows the FDA to review much of the data earlier, after the clinical trial results become available and the database is locked, but before the information is formally submitted to the agency. The FDA has established several criteria to determine whether a supplemental application may be selected for RTOR. Those criteria include whether: the investigational product is likely to demonstrate substantial improvements over available therapy; the study design is straight forward, as determined by the review division and the OCE; the endpoints can be easily interpreted. In addition, submissions with greater complexity, including those with companion diagnostics, may also be excluded for the purposes of the pilot program. On the basis of these criteria, the appropriate FDA review division and OCE management will jointly decide whether the application can be selected for the RTOR pilot program. The package should also include key raw and derived datasets, including safety/efficacy tables and figures, study protocol and amendments, and a draft of the package insert. The FDA will then evaluate these materials for sufficiency and integrity so that it can analyze the data to properly address key regulatory questions. Post‑Approval Regulation If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post‑approval regulatory requirements as well as any post‑approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including GMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third‑party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with GMP regulations and other regulatory requirements. A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, 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, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post‑market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Pharmaceutical products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Promotional claims about a drug's safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. Although health care providers may prescribe products for off-label uses in their professional judgment, drug manufacturers are prohibited from soliciting, encouraging or promoting unapproved uses of a product. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a biologic. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. In November 2013, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, became effective in the United States, mandating an industry-wide, electronic, interoperable system to trace prescription drugs through the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain with a ten-year phase-in process. Manufacturers were required by November 2023 to have such systems and processes in place but, in August 2023, the FDA set a one-year period in which it would exercise its enforcement discretion with respect to these requirements. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States. Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product. A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation. If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product 31 generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Under Omnibus legislation signed by the then President of the United States on December 27, 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drug products that received orphan drug designation before enactment of amendments to the FDCA in 2017 but have not yet been approved by FDA. In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. This six‑month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. Biosimilars and Exclusivity The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” To date, the FDA has licensed a number of biosimilar products and several interchangeable biosimilar products. Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable 32 products. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the drug therapeutic and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE. In April 2020, the FDA issued additional guidance which describes considerations for the development and labeling of companion diagnostic devices to support the indicated uses of multiple biological oncology products, when appropriate. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)). In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post‑market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval, or PMA, simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. A manufacturer that wishes to conduct a clinical study involving the device is subject to the FDA’s IDE regulation. The IDE regulation distinguishes between significant and non-significant risk device studies and the procedures for obtaining approval to begin the study differ accordingly. Also, some types of studies are exempt from the IDE regulations. A significant risk device presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. Significant risk devices are devices that are substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease or in preventing impairment to human health. Studies of devices that pose a significant risk require both FDA and an IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. Non-significant risk devices are devices that do not pose a significant risk to the human subjects. A non-significant risk device study requires only IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. 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 establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, which covers 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 unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States. 34 Federal and State Data Privacy and Security Laws Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes, and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their regulations, including the omnibus final rule published on January 25, 2013, also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Accordingly, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well. Additionally, California recently enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or CRPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities. In addition to California, eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU. Non-clinical Studies Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements. Clinical Trial Approval On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the EU. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU Portal and Database”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the appointed reporting Member State, whose assessment report is submitted for review by the sponsor and all other competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted, or concerned member states. Part II is assessed separately by each concerned member state. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned member state. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EU Clinical Trials Registry. The PRIority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of drug product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU Member States. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Manufacturers must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA. Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. 37 Conditional Approval In particular circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14–a Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables sponsors to obtain a “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the product candidate is intended for the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of patients; (3) a marketing authorization may be granted prior to submission of comprehensive clinical data provided that the benefit of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required; (4) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive; and (5) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new clinical trials and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization. Exceptional Circumstances A marketing authorization may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This marketing authorization is close to the conditional marketing authorization as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a marketing authorization However, unlike the conditional marketing authorization, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the marketing authorization “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the marketing authorization is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. Under these procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the member states make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety, and efficacy. Except conditional marketing authorizations, marketing authorizations have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two‑year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten‑year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of 38 marketing exclusivity for a drug. These periods can be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union. Periods of Authorization and Renewals A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk‑benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five‑year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the drug on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid. Regulatory Requirements after Marketing Authorization Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post‑authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry‑sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended. Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life‑threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life‑threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized European Union marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten‑year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted. Approval of Companion Diagnostic Devices In the European Union, medical devices such as companion diagnostics must comply with the General Safety and Performance Requirements, or SPRs, detailed in Annex I of the EU Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/745), or MDR, which came into force on May 26, 2021 and replaced the previously applicable EU Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC). Compliance with SPRs and additional requirements applicable to companion medical devices is a prerequisite to be able to affix the CE Mark of Conformity to medical devices, without which they cannot be marketed or sold. To demonstrate compliance with the SPRs, a manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. The MDR is meant to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable, and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for medical devices. Separately, the regulatory authorities in the EU also adopted a new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation, or IVDR, (EU) 2017/746, which became effective in May 2022. The new regulation replaces the In Vitro Diagnostics Directive (IVDD) 98/79/EC. Manufacturers wishing to apply to a notified body for a conformity assessment of their in vitro diagnostic medical device had until May 2022 to update their Technical Documentation to meet the requirements and comply with the new, more stringent Regulation. The regulation will, among other things: strengthen the rules on placing devices on the market and reinforce surveillance once they are available; establish explicit provisions on manufacturers’ responsibilities for the follow-up of the quality, performance, and safety of devices placed on the market; improve the traceability of medical devices throughout the supply chain to the end-user or patient through a unique identification number; set up a central database to provide patients, healthcare professionals and the public with comprehensive information on products available in the European Union; and strengthen rules for the assessment of certain high-risk devices, such as implants, which may have to undergo an additional check by experts before they are placed on the market. The IVDR became effective in May 2022. However, it became clear in 2021 that that EU Member States, health institutions and economic operators were not ready to apply the IVDR as from that date. The European Commission therefore proposed a progressive or staggered roll-out of the rules of the IVDR. The current transition periods range from 26 May 2025 for high risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower risk IVDs. Certain provisions for devices manufactured and used in health institutions, would have to apply as from 26 May 2028. These transition periods only apply to so called ‘legacy device’, meaning devices covered by a certificate or declaration of conformity issued under the previous legal framework (notably, the IVDD). Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s, or UK’s, withdrawal from the EU took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or the Agreement, which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the EU and the UK will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the UK is no longer part of the single market. 40 On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework.” This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the UK government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law. On June 9, 2023, the MHRA announced that the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework will apply from January 1, 2025. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or HMR, is the primary legal instrument for the regulation of medicines in the UK. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law.” However, new legislation such as the CTR will not be applicable in Great Britain. For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorizations from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our drug product candidates in the UK. A new international recognition framework has been in place since January 1, 2024, whereby the MHRA will have regard to decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations made by the EMA and certain other regulators when determining an application for a new Great Britain marketing authorization. General Data Protection Regulation The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the CJEU decision, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The European Union initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022, and the European Commission adopted the adequacy decision in July 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business. On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. As with other issues related to Brexit, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the UK and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the UK. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data 41 Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the UK that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the UK, it is unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the UK will remain lawful under the GDPR, although these transfers currently are permitted by an adequacy decision from the European Commission. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the UK as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the UK, although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.-UK “Data Bridge,” which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the UK to the United States. In addition to the UK, Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the United States). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third‑party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any drug product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such drug product candidates. Even if any drug product candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such drug product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third‑party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such drug product candidates. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third‑party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost‑effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third‑party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. Nonetheless, drug product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third‑party payor not to cover any drug product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such drug product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third‑party reimbursement and coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost‑containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost‑containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third‑party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any drug product candidates we may develop will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of any drug product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost‑effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade (arbitrage between low‑priced and high‑priced member states), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third‑party payors, and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti‑kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching physicians and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following: •the U.S.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business 43 or otherwise seeking favorable treatment; •the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, within HHS information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and •analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti‑kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by non‑governmental third‑party payors, including private insurers. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States. By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the PPACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 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. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our drug product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the PPACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the PPACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents. Pharmaceutical Price Initiatives The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. In 2020, the President of the United States issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care. In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 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 final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. On July 9, 2021, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments. On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by the President of the United States. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a 45 new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Chamber, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug product candidates or additional pricing pressures. Additional Regulations In addition to the foregoing, state, and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern the use, handling, and disposal of various biologic, chemical, and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good. Additionally, we utilize independent contractors and other third parties to assist with various aspects of our drug and product development. We recognize the value of our employees and are committed to being a workplace that encourages respect, collaboration, communication, transparency, and integrity. We seek to hire employees with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Our success starts and ends with having the best talent, and as a result, we are focused on attracting, developing and retaining our employees. We offer employees a competitive and comprehensive benefits package. The principal purposes of our incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants, advisors and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards, as applicable. Corporation Information Our website address is www.cuebiopharma.com.

Our website and the information contained on, or that can be accessed through, the website will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and are not considered part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report or document we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and any reference to our website address is intended to be an inactive textual reference only. Risk Factors We are subject to various risks that may materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. This discussion highlights some of the risks that may affect our future operating results. These are the risks and uncertainties we believe are most important for you to consider. We cannot be certain that we will successfully address these risks. If we are unable to address these risks, our business may not grow, our stock price may suffer, and we may be unable to stay in business. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, which we currently deem immaterial or which are similar to those faced by other companies in our industry or business in general, may also impair our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. The risks discussed below include forward-looking statements, and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Risks Related to Our Business We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, have no history of generating commercial revenue, have a history of operating losses, and may never achieve or maintain profitability. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. We have a limited operating history, have never generated revenue from product sales, and have a history of losses from operations. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $301. We currently do not have, and may never develop, any FDA-approved or commercialized products. We currently do not have any products approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency or any commercialized products and thus have never generated commercial revenue from product sales. For us to develop any products that might ultimately be commercialized, we will have to invest further time and capital in research and product development, regulatory compliance and market development. All of our development efforts will require substantial additional funding, none of which may result in any commercial revenue. Moreover, in the first quarter of 2022, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. We are actively seeking third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding structures, to further develop CUE-103 and our Neo-STAT and RDI-STAT programs, as well as our programs outside of oncology, including our CUE-200, CUE-300 and CUE-400 series, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all. Our other drug product candidates are all at a preclinical stage. In the first quarter of 2022, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. Our research and development efforts remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new biopharmaceutical products and treatments based on immune modulation. Development of the underlying technology may be affected by unanticipated technical or other problems, among other research and development issues, and the possible insufficiency of funds needed in order to complete development of these drug product candidates. Safety, regulatory and efficacy issues, clinical hurdles or other challenges may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that would increase our losses. We have limited experience in conducting clinical trials and no history of commercializing biologic products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, conducting research and developing our core technologies, and identifying and optimizing our lead product clinical candidates. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. Similarly, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. In order to obtain marketing approval for any of our biologic drug product candidates, we must demonstrate the safety, purity, and efficacy of the product candidate for the relevant clinical indication or indications through preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as additional supporting data. If our drug product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We have conducted various preclinical studies of our drug product candidates, but we do not know the predictive value of these studies for humans, and we cannot guarantee that any positive results in preclinical studies will successfully translate to human patients. It is not uncommon to observe results in human clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical testing, and many drug product candidates fail in clinical trials despite promising preclinical results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for their products. Human patients in clinical trials may suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies, including, but not limited to, immunogenic responses, organ toxicities such as liver, heart or kidney or other tolerability issues or possibly even death. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an Institutional Review Board may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability as compared to other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects. Further, if any of our drug product candidates obtains marketing approval, toxicities associated with our drug product candidates may also develop after such approval and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional warnings being added to the labeling, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our drug product candidates will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on preclinical studies or clinical testing. However, any such event, were it to occur, would cause substantial harm to our business and financial condition and would result in the diversion of our management’s attention. Success in preclinical studies or early clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials. Results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Our drug product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite demonstrating positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials or preliminary stages of clinical trials. There can be no assurance that the results seen in preclinical studies for any of our drug product candidates ultimately will result in success in clinical trials or that results seen in Phase 1 or 2 trials will be replicated in Phase 3 trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy or requirements during the period of our drug product candidate development. Any such delays could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. However, we may not be able to establish such relationships, and relationships we have established may not provide the expected benefits. In the first quarter of 2022, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series, and we are actively seeking third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding structures, to further develop CUE-103 and our Neo-STAT and RDI-STAT programs, as well as our programs outside of oncology, including our CUE-200, CUE-300 and CUE-400 series, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all. On February 22, 2023, we entered into a strategic collaboration agreement, or the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, with Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Ono, to further develop CUE-401 and provide dedicated resources and capabilities to help advance CUE-401 toward the clinic. Pursuant to the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, Ono paid us an upfront payment and agreed to fully fund all research activities related to CUE-401 through a specified option period of 24 months, which research activities are to be performed by us. Upon Ono’s exercise of its option to license CUE-401, we will receive an option exercise payment and be eligible for development and commercial milestone payments up to an aggregate of approximately $220 million, as well as tiered royalties on sales. Upon any such exercise, Ono will receive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize CUE-401, with us retaining a 50% co-development and co-commercialization right in the United States. Our decision to elect the co-development and co-commercialization option may be made within 30 days of Ono’s option exercise to license CUE-401. The amount paid by Ono to us for the option exercise and future milestone payments will vary based upon our decision to exercise the co-development and co-commercialization option. This agreement has not committed Ono to a long-term relationship with us, and we may not realize the payments provided for under the agreement. In addition, we currently do not have sales, marketing, manufacturing or distribution capabilities or arrangements. In order to commercialize our potential products, we plan to seek development and marketing partners or sublicensees to obtain necessary marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities. As a result, we may not be able to realize the benefit of collaboration agreements, strategic partnerships or licenses of our technology or potential products, which could delay our product development timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional drug product candidates. In the first quarter of 2022, we decided to strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. We are actively seeking third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding 53 structures, to further develop CUE-103 and our Neo-STAT and RDI-STAT programs outside of oncology, including our CUE-200, CUE-300 and CUE-400 series, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all. If we fail to identify additional potential drug product candidates, our business could be materially harmed. Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and drug product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our drug product candidates or to develop suitable potential drug product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential drug product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results than our drug product candidates. Our competitors may include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we have, such as a larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations, established relationships with CROs and other collaborators, as well as established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our drug product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection and, in turn, exclude us from technologies that we may need for the development of our technologies and potential products. Immunotherapy technologies are advancing at a rapid pace and we anticipate competing with companies developing bi-specific antibodies (e.g., Amgen, Immatics, Immunocore, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron and Roche Holding AG), cell therapies (e.g., Adaptimmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis AG), antibody-drug conjugates (e.g., AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Roche Holding AG), immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck and Roche Holding AG), and targeted cytokines (e.g., Asher Bio, Aulos Bio, BioNTech SE, Medicenna Therapeutics, Moderna, Inc., Mural Oncology, Roche Holding AG, Synthekine, Werewolf Therapeutics, and Xilio Therapeutics) many of which have significantly greater financial and other resources than we currently have. Additionally, we may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our drug product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our drug product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our drug product candidates for use in limited circumstances. Furthermore, a competitor could obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA with respect to such competitor’s product. If such competitor product is determined to be the same product as one of our drug product candidates, we may be prevented from obtaining approval from the FDA for such product candidate for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, and we may be subject to similar restrictions under non-U.S. regulations. If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to identify and develop new or next generation drug product candidates will be impaired, could result in loss of markets or market share and could make us less competitive. We are highly dependent upon the principal members of our management team, including Daniel Passeri, M.Sc. Our team has significant experience and knowledge of oncology drug discovery and development, T cell modulation, protein biochemistry and immunological assays, and the loss of any current or future team member could impair our ability to design, identify, and develop new intellectual property and drug product candidates and new scientific or product ideas. Additionally, if we lose the services of any of these persons, we would likely be forced to expend significant time and money in the pursuit of replacements, which may result in a delay in the development of our drug product candidates and the implementation of our business plan and plan of operations and diversion of our management’s attention. We can give no assurance that we could find satisfactory replacements for our current and future key scientific and management employees on terms that would not be unduly expensive or burdensome to us. To induce valuable personnel to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have granted stock options and restricted stock units that vest over time. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that these employees could leave our employment at any time, for or without cause. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical and scientific personnel. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our future CROs, manufacturers and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, cyberattacks or cyber-intrusions, loss of funds or information from phishing or other fraudulent schemes, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization or those with whom we do business. The risk of a security breach or disruption, 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. Increased security threats and more sophisticated cybercrimes and cyberattacks pose a potential risk to the security and availability of our internal computer systems, networks and services, including those used by third-party CROs, manufacturers or other contractors or consultants, as well as the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our data and the data of potential trial participants or patients, employees and others. Although to our knowledge we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information (such as individually identifiable health information), we could incur significant liabilities and the further development and commercialization of our drug product candidates could be delayed. In addition, the foreign, federal and state regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding, with frequent imposition of new and changing requirements. Compliance with changes in privacy and information security laws and standards may result in significant expense due to increased investment in technology and the development of new operational processes. 55 Public health epidemics or pandemics may adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials and preclinical studies. Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The GMP material for CUE-102 was ultimately manufactured in the second half of 2021. The delay in the manufacturing of our CUE-102 GMP batch impacted the expected filing date of the CUE-102 IND that was planned for the fourth quarter of 2021, which we filed on March 31, 2022. Despite our efforts to manage and remedy these impacts, their ultimate impact depends on factors beyond our knowledge or control, including the duration and severity of the pandemic, as well as third-party actions taken to contain its spread and mitigate its public health effects. Volatile or declining markets for equities could adversely affect our ability to raise capital when needed through the sale of shares of common stock or other equity or equity-linked securities. The public health emergency declarations related to COVID-19 ended on May 11, 2023. However, the FDA retained a number of COVID-19 related policies. It is unclear how, if at all, these policies will impact our efforts to develop and commercialize our drug product candidates. These and other factors arising from any future public health crises could adversely impact our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and results. War, terrorism, other acts of violence, or natural or manmade disasters may affect the markets in which we operate, our patients and resources required in our research and development activities. Our business may be adversely affected by political instability, disruption or destruction in a geographic region in which we operate, regardless of cause, including war, terrorism, riot, civil insurrection or social unrest, and natural or manmade disasters, including famine, flood, fire, earthquake, storm or pandemic events and spread of disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and geopolitical conflicts. Such events may affect our business by increasing prices for resources required in our research and development activities or limiting our access to patients for our clinical trials which may delay our progress on one or more of our clinical or preclinical drug product candidates. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. We rely upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs for execution of our clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under GMP regulations. In addition, portions of the clinical trials for our drug product candidates may be conducted outside of the United States, which will make it more difficult for us to monitor CROs and perform visits of our clinical trial sites and will force us to rely heavily on CROs to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and compliance with applicable regulations, including GCP. Failure to comply with applicable regulations in the conduct of the clinical trials for our drug product candidates may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if, among other reasons, it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our drug product candidates. Consequently, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our drug product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase substantially and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed significantly. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates. We rely completely on third parties to manufacture clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our drug product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience disruptions in supply or delays, suspensions or terminations of clinical trials or regulatory submissions. We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our drug product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. While we work closely with our third-party manufacturers on the manufacturing process for our drug product candidates, including quality audits, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for compliance with GMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities and we may not have sufficient access to supplies, which could significantly and adversely affect our operations. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve, or withdraws approval for, these facilities for the manufacture of our products and drug product candidates, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to commercialize, develop, or obtain or maintain regulatory approval for our products and drug product candidates. We also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our products and drug product candidates and we may need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. We expect to continue to depend on contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We may, however, be unable to enter into agreements or do so on commercially reasonable terms for potential future drug product candidates, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. Any alternative vendor would need to be qualified through an IND supplement, which could result in delay of our clinical trials of CUE-101 and CUE-102. On February 5, 2024, Catalent entered into a merger agreement under which Novo Holdings will acquire Catalent. The parties to the merger expected the acquisition to be completed towards the end of 2024. While we have been in communications with Catalent, and as of the filing of this report we are not aware of any delays or interruptions related to our agreements with Catalent as a result of the merger, we cannot guarantee that there will not be delays or interruptions in the future. These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of any of our drug product candidates; cause us to incur higher costs; or prevent us from commercializing them successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to deliver the required clinical or commercial quantities of active pharmaceutical ingredient on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed. For example, in January 2021, we were notified by Catalent that the manufacture of our GMP material for the CUE-102 drug product candidate would be delayed by approximately six weeks due to the invocation of the DPA. Patents and other proprietary rights are essential to our business, and our ability to compete effectively is dependent upon the proprietary nature of our technologies. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities to develop, maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We seek to protect these, in part, through confidentiality agreements with certain employees, consultants and other parties. Our success will depend in part on the ability of ourselves and our licensor(s) to obtain, to maintain (including making periodic filings and payments) and to enforce patent protection for its intellectual property, particularly those patent applications and other intellectual property to which we have secured exclusive rights. We and our licensor(s) may not successfully prosecute or continue to prosecute the patent applications which we have licensed. Even if patents are issued in respect of pending patent applications, we or our licensor(s) may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against entities that are infringing upon these patents, or may pursue such enforcement less aggressively than we ordinarily would. Without adequate protection for the intellectual property that we own or license, others may be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could unfavorably affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects. Even if issued, patents may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing similar products or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our potential products. Filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending patents on drug product candidates in all countries throughout the world could be prohibitively expensive for us, and our intellectual property rights in some non-U.S. In addition, the laws of certain non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. federal and state laws do. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing drugs made using our inventions in and into the United States or non-U.S. jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own drugs and further, may export otherwise infringing drugs to non-U.S. jurisdictions where we have patent protection, but where enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the United States. These drugs may compete with our drug product candidates and our patent rights or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or adequate to prevent them from competing. Many U.S.-based companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult in those jurisdictions for us to stop the infringement or misappropriation of our patents or other intellectual property rights, or the marketing of competing drugs in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, such proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims of infringement or misappropriation against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop. Any involuntary disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, potentially eroding our competitive position in our market. We seek to protect confidential or proprietary information in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties. While we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information and technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that this know-how, information and technology will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. These agreements may be terminated or breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such termination or breach. Furthermore, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and know-how in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that any of our staff was previously employed by other pharmaceutical, medical technology or biotechnology companies, those employers may allege violations of trade secrets and other similar claims in relation to their former employee’s therapeutic development activities for us. Any dispute involving such employees may result in liabilities to us. If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license development or commercialization rights to products or technology from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business. We hold an exclusive license from Einstein to intellectual property relating to certain patent rights, relating to our core technology platform for the engineering of biologics to control T cell activity, precision, immune-modulatory drug product candidates, and two supporting technologies that enable the discovery of costimulatory signaling molecules (ligands) and T cell targeting peptides. This license imposes various developmental milestone obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any obligations under the license agreement and fail to cure such noncompliance, Einstein will have the right to terminate the agreement and our license. The existing patent applications or future patents to which we have rights based on our agreements with Einstein may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protection provided by these patents. Additionally, we may lose our rights to the patents and patent applications we license in the event of termination of the license agreement. The termination of this license agreement would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. The strength of our anticipated patents will involve complex legal and scientific matters and can be uncertain. As described above under “Business – Our Intellectual Property,” we own or license a number of pending patent applications. Our anticipated patents may be challenged or fail to result in issued patents and anticipated patents may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protections provided by our intellectual property and in that event we may lose competitive advantage and our business may suffer. Further, the patent and patent applications that we license or have filed may fail to result in issued patents or the claims may need to be amended. Even after amendment, a patent may not issue. In that event, we may not obtain the exclusive use of the intellectual property that we seek, and we may lose competitive advantage, which could result in harm to our business. Litigation or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or challenges to the validity of our anticipated patents would require us to use resources to protect our technology and may prevent or delay our development, regulatory approval or commercialization of our drug product candidates. If we are the target of claims by third parties asserting that our potential products or intellectual property infringe upon the rights of others, we may be forced to incur substantial expenses or divert substantial employee resources from our business. If successful, those claims could result in our having to pay substantial damages or could prevent us from developing one or more drug product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our collaborators, we or they could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into license agreements on acceptable terms or at all. This could harm our business significantly. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding, regardless of its merit, and even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to bear the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their having greater financial and human resources. 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. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may, regardless of their merit, also absorb significant management time and employee resources. Other parties may in the future allege that our activities infringe upon their patents or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may not have identified all the patents, patent applications or published literature that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our potential products, by preventing the patentability of one or more aspects of our potential products or those of our licensor or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market our potential products. In addition, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our drug product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain future licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Some intellectual property that we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers. The majority of the intellectual property rights we have licensed are generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply. Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the normal statutory term 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. Further, normal statutory patent terms may be limited in the U.S. in the event there is a determination that the claims in different patents are directed to obvious variants of the same invention, which can negatively impact the normal statutory patent term. Even if patents covering our drug product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug product candidates, patents protecting such drug product candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drug product candidates similar or identical to ours. Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our drug 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 the scope of protection is not the full scope of the claims but is instead limited to 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. For example, we may be sued if our drug product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or death or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the drug, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state or foreign consumer protection laws. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our drug product candidates. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of drugs we develop, alone or with collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our insurance coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our drug product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. Any of our drug product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any drug product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biologic product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any of our drug product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Further, on January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. We have not previously secured authorization to conduct clinical studies in the EU pursuant to this new regulation and, accordingly, there is a risk that we may be delayed in commencing such studies. In addition, under the PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for certain biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA. For any of our drug product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the U.S. or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. We are subject to regulation in respect of our research and federal funding. Because our licensor has conducted research under federal grants and we may conduct further research under federal grants, we will be subject to federal regulation in how we conduct our research and the agreement terms relating to those grants. There are also ethical guidelines promulgated by various governments and research institutions that we are required to follow in respect of our research. These guidelines are orientated towards research and experimentation involving humans and animals. Failure to follow the regulations, agreement terms and accepted scientific practices would jeopardize our grants and our results and the use of the results in further research and approval circumstances. Because our licensor has used federal funding, the government retains a “march-in” right in connection with these grants, which is the right to grant additional licenses to practice inventions developed from grant funding. In December 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, released for public comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, or the Draft Framework. The Draft Framework sets forth the factors that an agency may consider when deciding whether to exercise march-in rights pursuant to 63 the Bayh-Dole Act and includes a first-ever specification that price can be a factor in determining that a drug or other taxpayer-funded invention is not accessible to the public. NIST is currently seeking public comments on the proposed Draft Framework. The potential inclusion of price as a factor in a march-in determination and the exercise of “march-in” rights by the federal government could result in decreased demand for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, any failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations could harm our business and divert our management’s attention. Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent any of our drug product candidates from being marketed in such jurisdictions, which, in turn, would materially impair our ability to generate revenue. In order to market and sell any of our drug product candidates in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to seeking marketing approval in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. A trade and cooperation agreement that outlines the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU was agreed to in December 2020 and entered into force on May 1, 2021. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland will continue to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol (as amended by the so-called Windsor Framework relating to Northern Ireland agreed in February 2023). The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law of the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our drug product candidates in the UK. From January 1, 2024 on, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA. However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our drug product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States. 64 We may seek orphan drug designation for one or more of our drug product candidates, but even if such designation is granted, we may be unable to maintain any benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity that prevents the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the agency must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition. The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the Agency to mean the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA or Congress may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted. If approved, our drug product candidates that are licensed and regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The 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 approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product In addition, the licensure of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as its BLA does not reply on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty, and any new policies or processes adopted by the FDA could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products. We believe that any of the product candidates we develop as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still 65 developing. Nonetheless, the approval of a biosimilar to our drug product candidates would have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure. Even if our drug product candidates receive one or more of these designations, the product candidate may not be subject to a faster review process nor does any such designation assure approval of our drug product candidates. We aim to benefit from the FDA’s fast track, breakthrough therapy and priority review programs. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the BLA is submitted. On October 3, 2022, we received fast track designation for CUE-101 for the treatment of R/M HPV+ HNSCC as a monotherapy and in combination with KEYTRUDA. The FDA has also established breakthrough therapy designation, which is for a product that is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. We may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our drug product candidates, but there can be no assurance that we will receive such designation. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant these designations to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, any such designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to licensure compared to conventional FDA procedures. As a result, while we may seek and receive these designations for our drug product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw these designations if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. We are also currently participating in Project Optimus, an initiative of the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA. This project focuses on dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development, and whether the current paradigm based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics leads to doses and schedules of molecularly targeted therapies that provide more toxicity without additional efficacy, among other things. By participating in Project Optimus, we have the opportunity to meet with the FDA’s Oncology Review Divisions early in our development programs, well before conducting trials intended for registration, to discuss dose-finding and dose optimization. The program thus allows us to develop strategies for dose finding and dose optimization that leverages nonclinical and clinical data in dose selection, including randomized evaluations of a range of doses in trials, with the objective of performing these studies as early as possible in the development program to bring promising new therapies to patients. There is no assurance, however, that our involvement in this program will lead to early discussions with the FDA or expedited studies leading to optimization of dose selection for our candidate products. We may seek approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to use accelerated development pathways for our drug product candidates. If we are not able to use such pathways, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials beyond those that are contemplated, which would increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals, if we receive them at all. In addition, even if an accelerated approval pathway is available to us, it may not lead to expedited approval of our drug product candidates, or approval at all. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate 66 clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will continue to seek feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies and otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will agree with our surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints in any of our clinical trials, or that we will decide to pursue or submit any additional applications for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, for any submission of an application for accelerated approval or application under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted for filing or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Finally, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to (i) require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded; (ii) require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed; and (iii) use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or a BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, we will need to observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that our products qualify for accelerated approval. Accordingly, a failure to obtain and maintain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our drug product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period until commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace. We may in the future, conduct clinical trials for certain of our drug product candidates at sites outside the United States. The FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations and the conduct of trials outside the United States could subject us to additional delays and expense. We may in the future conduct one or more of our clinical trials with trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practice. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if necessary. The trial population must also have a similar profile to the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful, except to the extent the disease being studied does not typically occur in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, the FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we 67 conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our drug product candidates. In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the United States could have a significant adverse impact on us or the trial results. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include: •clinical practice patterns and standards of care that vary widely among countries; •non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials; •administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple non-U.S. regulatory authority schema; •foreign exchange rate fluctuations; and •diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries. The number of preclinical and clinical tests that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the disease or condition to be treated, the method of treatment, the nature of the drug, the jurisdiction in which approval is sought and the applicable regulations. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a product for many reasons. The FDA may make requests or suggestions regarding conduct of any clinical trials, resulting in an increased risk of difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the United States. Foreign regulatory agencies may similarly have the ability to influence any clinical trials occurring outside the United States. Any of these occurrences could prove materially harmful to our operations and business. Even if we, or any collaborators we may have, obtain marketing approvals for any of our drug product candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products could require the substantial expenditure of resources and may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects. If we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continuing regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Our drug product candidates, if approved, could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our drug product candidates, when and if approved. Any drug product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post marketing information. For example, approved products, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our drug product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, it may impose restrictions on that product or us. In addition, if any product fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may: •issue fines, warning letters, untitled letters or impose holds on clinical trials if any are still ongoing; •mandate modifications to promotional materials or require provision of corrective information to healthcare practitioners; •impose restrictions on the product or its manufacturers or manufacturing processes; •impose restrictions on the labeling or marketing of the product; •impose restrictions on product distribution or use; •require post-marketing clinical trials; •require withdrawal of the product from the market; •refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit; •require recall of the product; •require entry into a consent decree, which can include imposition of various fines (including restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenue), reimbursements for inspection costs, required due dates for specific actions and penalties for non-compliance; •suspend or withdraw marketing approvals; •refuse to permit the import or export of the product; •seize or detain supplies of the product; or 69 •issue injunctions or impose civil or criminal penalties. Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various conditions adopted under a REMS. In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that may negatively impact the development, approval and distribution of drug products in the U.S. Among other determinations, the district court held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that FDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving mifepristone without sufficiently considering evidence bearing on whether the drug was safe to use under the conditions identified in its labeling. Further, the district court read the standing requirements governing litigation in federal court as permitting a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS based on a showing that the plaintiff or its members would be harmed to the extent that FDA’s drug approval decision effectively compelled the plaintiffs to provide care for patients suffering adverse events caused by a given drug. On April 12, 2023, the district court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court entered a stay of the district court’s decision, in its entirety, pending disposition of the appeal of the district court decision in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral argument in the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The court declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market, finding that a challenge to the FDA’s initial approval in 2000 is barred by the statute of limitations. But the Appeals Court did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone that FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious. On September 8, 2023, the Justice Department and a manufacturer of mifepristone filed petitions for a writ of certiorari, requesting that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Appeals Court decision. On December 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted these petitions for writ of certiorari for the appeals court decision. 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 approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Further, any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any drug product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the EU. The holder of a marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include: compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, which can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations; the manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory; and the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, which are strictly regulated in the EU and are also subject to EU Member State laws. The failure to comply with these and other EU requirements can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Any regulatory approval to market our products will be limited by indication. If we fail to comply or are found to be in violation of FDA regulations restricting the promotion of our products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to criminal penalties, substantial fines or other sanctions and damage awards. The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe our products off-label to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses. 70 Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products. In recent years, a significant number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been the target of inquiries and investigations by various federal and state regulatory, investigative, prosecutorial and administrative entities in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales practices, including the Department of Justice and various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of Inspector General of the HHS, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and various state Attorneys General offices. These investigations have alleged violations of various federal and state laws and regulations, including claims asserting antitrust violations, violations of the FDCA, the False Claims Act, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and anti-kickback laws and other alleged violations in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses, pricing and Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement. Many of these investigations originate as “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, any individual can bring a claim on behalf of the government alleging that a person or entity has presented a false claim or caused a false claim to be submitted to the government for payment. Qui tam suits, also commonly referred to as “whistleblower suits,” are often brought by current or former employees. In a qui tam suit, the government must decide whether to intervene and prosecute the case. If it declines, the individual may pursue the case alone. If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us or if we are the subject of a qui tam suit and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to substantial civil or criminal fines or damage awards and other sanctions such as consent decrees and corporate integrity agreements pursuant to which our activities would be subject to ongoing scrutiny and monitoring to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Any such fines, awards or other sanctions would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business, financial prospects and reputation. Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shutdowns, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes, which has caused average review times at the agency to fluctuate in recent years. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities or enable capital raising activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. For example, over the last several years the U.S. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Further, future government shutdowns or other events could impact the SEC, which could 71 harm our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets. Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, and diminished profits and future earnings. Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any of our drug product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell, and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order, or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization, and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines, or imprisonment. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In the United States, these pressures come from a variety of sources, such as managed care groups and institutional and government purchasers. Increased purchasing power of entities that negotiate on behalf of federal healthcare programs and private sector beneficiaries could increase pricing pressures in the future. Such pressures may also increase the risk of litigation or investigation by the government regarding pricing calculations. There is increased uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more future drug product candidates, even if our future drug product candidates obtain regulatory approval. Adverse pricing limitations prior to approval will also adversely affect us by reducing our commercial potential. Our ability to commercialize any potential products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments becomes available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A significant trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and these third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize in the future and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval in the future. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate that we successfully develop. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government funded and private payors for future products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize potential products and our overall financial condition. Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our drug product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain for any products that are approved in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any drug product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and have been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as 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 FDA approved product. 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. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In March 2010, the PPACA was signed into law. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 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. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our drug product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, or PAYGO, sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Act’s healthcare offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an 74 action challenging the PPACA after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents. There have been several recent U.S. In 2020, the White House issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care. In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 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 final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. More recently, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by the President of the United States. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under 75 Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or “catastrophic period” of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period, must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans, and placing price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, regional health care organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug product candidates or additional pricing pressures. In countries outside of the United States, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially. The HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification regulations, including the expanded requirements under HITECH, establish comprehensive federal standards with respect to the uses and disclosures of protected health information, or PHI, by health plans, healthcare providers and healthcare clearinghouses, in addition to setting standards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and security of PHI. We are required to comply with federal privacy, security and breach notification regulations as well as varying state privacy, security and breach notification laws and regulations, which may be more stringent than federal HIPAA requirements. In addition, for healthcare data transfers from other countries relating to citizens of those countries, we must comply with the laws of those countries. The federal privacy regulations restrict our ability to use or disclose patient identifiable data, without patient authorization, for purposes other than payment, treatment, healthcare operations and certain other specified disclosures such as public health and governmental oversight of the healthcare industry. HIPAA provides for significant fines and other penalties for wrongful use or disclosure of PHI, including potential civil and criminal fines and penalties. Computer networks are always vulnerable to breach and unauthorized persons may in the future be able to exploit weaknesses in the security systems of our computer networks and gain access to PHI. Unauthorized persons may be able to gain access to PHI stored in such third-parties computer networks. Although the HIPAA statute and regulations do not expressly provide for a private right of damages, we could also incur damages under state laws to private parties for the wrongful use or disclosure of confidential health information or other private personal information. Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. In the UK, the GDPR is retained in domestic law as the UK GDPR and sits alongside an amended version of the UK Data Protection Act of 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. The GDPR places restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the EU to countries that have not been found by the European Commission to offer adequate data protection legislation. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for international transfers of personal data from the EEA. This CJEU decision resulted in increased scrutiny on data transfers and increased our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners. In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which serves as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. In relation to data transfers, both the UK and the EU have determined, through separate “adequacy” decisions, that data transfers between the two jurisdictions are in compliance with the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 and the GDPR, respectively. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.-UK “Data Bridge”, which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the UK to the U.S. In addition to the UK, Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the U.S.). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business. Beyond GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and the sale and distribution of commercial products, through increased compliance costs, costs associated with contracting and potential enforcement actions. While we continue to address the implications of the recent changes to data privacy regulations, data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect and continued legal challenges, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. We must devote significant resources to understanding and complying with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with laws regarding data protection would expose us to risk of enforcement actions taken by data protection authorities in the EEA and elsewhere and carries with it the potential for significant penalties if we are found to be non-compliant. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws in the U.S. regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties under such laws. There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information. In particular, regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA establish privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. Determining whether protected health information has been handled in compliance with applicable privacy standards and our contractual obligations can be complex and may be subject to changing interpretation. These obligations may be applicable to some or all of our business activities now or in the future. If we are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of protected health information, we could be found to have breached our contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, including applicable HIPAA privacy and security standards, we could face civil and criminal penalties. HHS enforcement activity can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. In addition, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations that threaten the privacy of state residents. We cannot be sure how these regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems. In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020, and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the GDPR, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities. In addition to California, eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our 79 business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business. Further, we cannot assure you that our third-party service providers with access to our or our customers’, suppliers’, trial patients’ and employees’ personally identifiable and other sensitive or confidential information in relation to which we are responsible will not breach contractual obligations imposed by us, or that they will not experience data security breaches or attempts thereof, which could have a corresponding effect on our business, including putting us in breach of our obligations under privacy laws and regulations and/or which could in turn adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot assure you that our contractual measures and our own privacy and security-related safeguards will protect us from the risks associated with the third-party processing, storage and transmission of such information. We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants, and partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the European Union and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA, the European Commission, and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately, or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing, and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements. Such misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but 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 government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions. Laws and regulations governing any international operations we may have in the future may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain drug product candidates outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs. We are subject to numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction outside the United States in which we operate. The creation, implementation and maintenance of international business practices compliance programs is costly and such programs are difficult to enforce, particularly where reliance on third parties is required. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal 80 accounting controls for international operations. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced primarily by the Department of Justice. The SEC is involved with enforcement of the books and records provisions of the FCPA. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial penalties, including suspension or debarment from government contracting. Violation of the FCPA can result in significant civil and criminal penalties. Indictment alone under the FCPA can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the U.S. government until the pending claims are resolved. Conviction of a violation of the FCPA can result in long-term disqualification as a government contractor. The termination of a government contract or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of our obligations under laws governing international business practices would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure government contracts. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions. If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business. Our business operations will subject us to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also may produce hazardous waste products. We expect to generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. However, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. In addition, we may be required to incur substantial costs to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions and we may not have sufficient (or any) insurance to cover any such costs. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to generate commercial revenue, and we may never be able to produce commercial revenues or operate on a profitable basis. As a result, we have incurred losses since our inception and expect to experience operating losses and negative cash flow for the foreseeable future. Even if we and our collaborators are able to commercialize our technology, which may include licensing, we may never recover our research and development expenses. We will need substantial additional financing to support our growth and ongoing operations. Additional capital may be difficult to obtain, restrict our operations, require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or drug product candidates, encumber our assets and result in ongoing debt service cost, or result in additional dilution to our stockholders. Our business will require additional capital for implementation of our long-term business plan and product development and commercialization. As we require additional funds, we may seek to fund our operations through the sale of additional equity securities, debt financing and/or strategic collaboration agreements. We cannot be sure that additional financing from any of these sources will be available when needed or that, if available, the additional financing will be obtained on favorable terms. Our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely impacted by general economic conditions, both inside and outside the U.S., including disruptions to, and instability and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the U.S. and worldwide, heightened inflation, interest rate and currency rate fluctuations, and economic slowdown or recession as well as concerns related to pandemic events and spread of disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and geopolitical events, including civil or political unrest. In addition, market instability and volatility, high levels of inflation and interest rate fluctuations may increase our cost of financing or restrict our access to potential sources of future liquidity. If we raise additional funds by selling shares of our common stock or other equity-linked securities, the ownership interest of our current stockholders will be diluted. We may seek to access the public or private capital markets whenever conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or drug product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be acceptable to us. If we raise additional funds through debt financing, we may have to grant a security interest on our assets to the future lenders, our debt service costs may be substantial, and the lenders may have a preferential position in connection with any future bankruptcy or liquidation involving the company. Our pledge of our assets as collateral to secure our obligations under our loan and security agreement, as amended, or the Loan Agreement, with First Citizens Bank (as defined below) (and formerly with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB), may limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing. Under the Loan Agreement, we are also restricted from incurring future debt, granting liens, making investments, making acquisitions, distributing dividends on our common stock and selling assets and making certain other uses of our cash, without First Citizens Bank’s consent, subject in each case to certain exceptions. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we may be required to curtail the development of our technology or materially curtail or reduce our operations. We could be forced to sell or dispose of our rights or assets. Any inability to raise adequate funds on commercially reasonable terms could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition, including the possibility that a lack of funds could cause our business to fail and the Company to dissolve and liquidate with little or no return to investors. Our recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. 83 We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have never generated revenue or profit from product sales, and it is possible we will never generate revenue or profit from product sales.5 million. Based on our current operating plans, we believe we will have sufficient funds to meet our obligations into the first quarter of 2025. However, we will need to raise additional capital to fund our future operations and remain as a going concern. To the extent that we raise additional capital through future equity offerings, the ownership interest of common stockholders will be diluted, which dilution may be significant. In the event that we are unable to obtain any or sufficient additional funding, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue as a going concern, and we will be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our product development programs or consider other various strategic alternatives. Moreover, these factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock, and it may be more difficult for us to obtain financing. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. We hold a portion of our cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts, and our liquidity and operations could be adversely affected if a financial institution holding such funds fails. The balances held in these accounts typically exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, standard deposit insurance limit of $250,000 per depositor and per institution. If a financial institution in which we hold such funds fails or is subject to significant adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we could be subject to a risk of loss of all or a portion of such uninsured funds or be subject to a delay in accessing all or a portion of our funds. Any such loss or lack of access to these funds could adversely impact our short-term liquidity and ability to meet our operating expense obligations, including payroll obligations. For example, on March 10, 2023, SVB was closed and the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC created a successor bridge bank, and all deposits and loans of SVB were transferred to the bridge bank under a systemic risk exception approved by the United States Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. On March 27, 2023, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, or First Citizens Bank, assumed all of SVB’s deposits and certain other liabilities and acquired substantially all of SVB’s loans and certain other assets from the FDIC. Access to and availability of deposits was delayed, though ultimately, in that case, restored. If financial institutions in which we may hold funds for working capital and operating expenses were to fail, we cannot provide any assurances that the applicable governmental agencies would take action to protect our uninsured deposits or make deposits available in a similar manner. We also maintain investment accounts with financial institutions in which we hold our marketable securities and, if access to the funds we use for working capital and operating expenses is impaired, we may not be able to open new operating accounts or to sell investments or transfer funds from our investment accounts to new operating accounts in a timely manner sufficient to meet our operating expense obligations. In addition, to the extent that the financial institutions with which we hold securities fail or are associated with banks that fail, there may be delays or other access restrictions with respect to such securities, similar to those described above for deposit accounts. We have a loan agreement that requires us to meet certain operating covenants and place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. On February 15, 2022, we entered into the Loan Agreement with SVB, which was later assumed by First Citizens Bank, pursuant to which we have borrowed $10. The Loan Agreement was amended in April 2023. The Loan Agreement is secured by substantially all of our properties, rights and assets, except for our intellectual property, which is subject to a negative pledge, and certain other customary exclusions. Because of the security interest, First Citizens Bank’s rights to repayment from a liquidation of the assets subject to that security interest would be senior to the rights of other creditors. 84 The Loan Agreement includes customary covenants including covenants requiring us to maintain our corporate existence and governmental approvals, deliver certain financial reports and maintain insurance coverage as well as a requirement that we maintain in our accounts at First Citizens Bank unrestricted and unencumbered cash equal to the lesser of all of our cash or $20,000,000. Additionally, we are restricted in our ability to transfer collateral, incur additional indebtedness, engage in mergers or acquisitions, pay dividends or make other distributions, make investments, create liens, sell assets and agree to a change in control. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, which includes our failure to satisfy our payment obligations under the Loan Agreement, the breach of certain of these covenants under the Loan Agreement, or the occurrence of a material adverse change in our business, First Citizens Bank is entitled to accelerate amounts due under the Loan Agreement and dispose the collateral as permitted under applicable law. Any declaration by First Citizens Bank of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. We are a “smaller reporting company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors. We have elected to take advantage of certain of the reduced reporting obligations. Investors may find our common stock less attractive as a result of our reliance on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. Our stock price can be volatile and fluctuate significantly, and our stockholders may have difficulty selling their shares and/or suffer substantial losses. Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “CUE. Risk Factors” section and other, unknown factors.S. equity markets. In addition, the stock market, in general, and small pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors beyond our control may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance, and cause the price of our common stock to decline rapidly and unexpectedly. 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. If securities or industry analysts do not publish research reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse opinion about our business, the price of our securities and trading volume could decline. The trading market for our securities is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. There can be no assurance that existing analysts will continue to cover us or that new analysts will begin to cover us. There is also no assurance that any covering analyst will provide favorable coverage. Although we have obtained analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts who cover us issues an adverse opinion about our company, the price of our securities would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases research coverage of us or fails to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause the price of our securities or trading volume to decline. We have not paid dividends in the past and have no immediate plans to pay dividends. We do not plan to pay any cash dividends with respect to our securities in the foreseeable future. We cannot assure you that we would, at any time, generate sufficient surplus cash that would be available for distribution to the holders of our common stock as a dividend. In addition, our ability to pay cash dividends is currently restricted by the terms of the Loan Agreement, and future debt financing arrangements may contain terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. We have generated significant net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, and research and development tax credits, or R&D credits, as a result of our incurrence of losses and our conduct of research activities since inception. We generally are able to carry NOLs and R&D credits forward to reduce our tax liability in future years. However, our ability to utilize the NOLs and R&D credits is subject to the rules of Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, respectively. Those sections generally restrict the use of NOLs and R&D credits after an “ownership change. We may have experienced an “ownership change” within the meaning of Section 382 in the past and there can be no assurance that we will not experience additional ownership changes in the future. As a result, our NOLs and business credits (including the R&D credit) may be subject to limitations and we may be required to pay taxes earlier and in larger amounts than would be the case if our NOLs or R&D credits were freely usable. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs and R&D credit carryforwards could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, state NOLs generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes. As a public company, and particularly as we are no longer an emerging growth company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition, there are significant corporate governance and executive compensation-related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act that increase public companies’ legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and may also place undue strain on personnel, systems and resources. In addition, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified people to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers. Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or the Certificate of Incorporation, and our amended and restated bylaws, or the Bylaws, and applicable provisions of Delaware law may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares, or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law may limit our ability to engage in any business combination with a person who beneficially owns 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock unless certain conditions are satisfied. These provisions may have the effect of entrenching our management team and may deprive you of the opportunity to sell your shares to potential acquirers at a premium over prevailing prices. This potential inability to obtain a control premium could reduce the price of our common stock. Our Certificate of Incorporation provides, subject to certain exceptions, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for certain stockholder litigation matters, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or stockholders. Our Certificate of Incorporation provides that, subject to limited exceptions and unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for all “internal corporate claims.” “Internal corporate claims” mean claims, including claims in the right of the corporation, (i) that are based upon a violation of a duty by a current or former director or officer or stockholder in such capacity or (ii) as to which Title 8 of the Delaware Code confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Chancery, except for, as to each of (i) through (ii) above, any claim as to which the Court of Chancery determines that there is an indispensable party not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (and the indispensable party does not consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery within ten days following such determination), which is vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery, or for which the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The choice of forum provisions will not apply to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, or any other claim for which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This choice of forum provision 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, other employees or stockholders which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision that will be contained in our Certificate of Incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and provide a management report on our internal control over financial reporting. Until such time as we are no longer a "smaller reporting company" with less than $100 million in annual revenue, our auditors will not be required to attest as to our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, if we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective or, once required, provide an attestation report from our independent registered public accounting firm, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could decrease. We could also become subject to stockholder or other third-party litigation as well as investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources and could result in fines, trading suspensions or other remedies. 88 If a significant number of our total outstanding shares are sold into the market, the market price of our common stock could drop significantly, even if our business is performing well. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Our outstanding shares of common stock may be freely sold in the public market at any time to the extent permitted by Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act or to the extent such shares have already been registered under the Securities Act and are held by non-affiliates of ours. In November 2022, we completed a private placement of shares of our common stock, pre-funded warrants to purchase shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase shares of our common stock (or pre-funded warrants to purchase common stock in lieu thereof) to several accredited investors. We filed a registration statement covering the resale of these shares by the purchasers in this private placement, and agreed to keep such registration statements effective until the date the shares covered by the registration statement have been sold or can be resold without restriction under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. We currently have on file with the SEC a universal shelf registration statement which allows us to offer and sell up to $300 million of registered common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants, subscription rights and/or units from time to time pursuant to one or more offerings at prices and terms to be determined at the time of sale. In addition, we have also entered into an Open Market Sale Agreement with Jefferies LLC, as sales agent, pursuant to which we may offer and sell shares of our common stock under such registration statement with an aggregate offering price of up to $55.6 million under an “at-the-market” offering program. To date, we have sold $40.4 million of securities pursuant to the Open Market Sale Agreement. In addition, we have filed registration statements registering all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to black-out periods and volume limitations applicable to affiliates. Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments Not applicable. Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity Risk Management and Strategy We have policies, procedures, and processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, which are built into our overall information technology function and are designed to help protect our information assets and operations from internal and external cyber threats as well as secure our networks and systems. Such processes include procedural and technical safeguards, response plans, and routine review of our policies and procedures to identify risks and improve our practices. Our security incident response plan is designed to help coordinate our response to, and recovery from, any cybersecurity incidents, and includes processes to assess the severity of, escalate, contain, investigate, and remediate such incidents as well as to comply with applicable legal obligations. We engage certain external parties to enhance our cybersecurity processes and strategies. The Audit Committee of the board of directors provides direct oversight over cybersecurity risk and provides regular updates to the board of directors regarding such oversight. The Audit Committee regularly meets with members of management responsible for data privacy, technology, and information security risks to discuss these risks, risk management activities, incident response plans, best practices, the effectiveness of our security measures, and other related matters. Our Senior Director of Information Technology and Cyber Security, who reports to our Chief Financial Officer, leads the operational oversight of company-wide cybersecurity strategy, policy, standards, and processes and works across relevant departments to assess and help prepare us and our employees to address cybersecurity risks. Specific cybersecurity related 89 responsibilities of the Senior Director of Information Technology and Cyber Security include overseeing our processes and strategies for the detection, mitigation, and remediation of cybersecurity incidents. Our Senior Director of Information Technology and Cyber Security has over 25 years of diverse experience in information technology, including management roles at managed service providers, enabling him to effectively oversee cybersecurity risks and threats. In an effort to deter and detect cyber threats, we provide all employees, including any part-time employees, with a data protection, cybersecurity, and incident response and prevention training program designed to educate employees on the importance of identifying and reporting all potential data security incidents immediately. The training covers timely and relevant topics, including social engineering, phishing, password protection, confidential data protection, asset use, and mobile security. We also use technology-based tools to mitigate cybersecurity threats and risks and to bolster our employee-based cybersecurity programs. We do not believe that there are currently any known risks from cybersecurity threats that are reasonably likely to materially affect us or our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition. Despite our cybersecurity efforts, we may not be successful in preventing or mitigating a cybersecurity incident that could have a material adverse effect on us. See Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors, in this Annual Report for a discussion of cybersecurity risks. We maintain cyber insurance coverage; however, such insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to security breaches, cyber-attacks, and other related breaches. .

Recently Filed

Click on a ticker to see risk factors

Ticker *	File Date
EAWD	20 hours ago
ARAT	20 hours ago
IONM	20 hours ago
NHWK	21 hours ago
GBBK	21 hours ago
APOG	22 hours ago
FWAV	1 day ago
JRSS	1 day, 1 hour ago
PPIH	1 day, 4 hours ago
WAVS	1 day, 17 hours ago
GBNH	1 day, 19 hours ago
ACCD	1 day, 19 hours ago
EFSH	1 day, 21 hours ago
RFAC	1 day, 21 hours ago
GXXM	2 days, 1 hour ago
PGY	2 days, 4 hours ago
KPLT	2 days, 20 hours ago
MSB	2 days, 21 hours ago
MMMB	2 days, 21 hours ago
LVPA	2 days, 23 hours ago
HELE	3 days, 6 hours ago
RILY	3 days, 15 hours ago
BHAC	3 days, 21 hours ago
STZ	4 days ago
ARMT	4 days, 5 hours ago
ARMT	4 days, 5 hours ago
RCFA	4 days, 17 hours ago
FSR	4 days, 18 hours ago
TPIA	4 days, 19 hours ago
MEDS	4 days, 20 hours ago
PVNC	4 days, 20 hours ago
CDTX	4 days, 20 hours ago
ENCP	4 days, 20 hours ago
ACI	5 days, 5 hours ago
AZZ	5 days, 7 hours ago
DGWR	5 days, 7 hours ago
AURX	1 week ago
CIRX	1 week ago
GTCH	1 week ago
HWNI	1 week ago
CSSE	1 week ago
WNLV	1 week ago
RBTK	2 weeks ago
BTTR	2 weeks ago
ROYL	2 weeks ago
VIRC	2 weeks ago
SCS	2 weeks, 1 day ago
DHAC	2 weeks, 1 day ago
ALOT	2 weeks, 1 day ago
NUBI	2 weeks, 1 day ago

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Dashboard

Corporate Flights

Dashboard

App Ratings

Dashboard

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - CUE

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

$CUE Risk Factor changes from 00/03/09/21/2021 to 00/03/28/24/2024

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - CUE

-New additions in green-Changes in blue-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

$CUE Risk Factor changes from 00/03/09/21/2021 to 00/03/28/24/2024

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing