UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

Commission File Number 001-37923

CRISPR THERAPEUTICS AG

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: +41 (0)41 561 32 77

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common shares held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $4.5 billion, based on the closing price on the Nasdaq Global Market of the Registrant’s common shares on June 30, 2020 (the last trading day of the Registrant’s second fiscal quarter of 2020).

The number of the Registrant’s common shares outstanding as of February 11, 2021 was 75,428,927.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

i

Risk Factor Summary

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

ii

Throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the “Company,” “CRISPR,” “CRISPR Therapeutics,” “we,” “us,” and “our,” except where the context requires otherwise, refer to CRISPR Therapeutics AG and its consolidated subsidiaries, and “our board of directors” refers to the board of directors of CRISPR Therapeutics AG.

“CRISPR Therapeutics®” standard character mark and design logo, “CTX001^TM,” “CTX110^TM,” “CTX120^TM,” and “CTX130^TM” are trademarks and registered trademarks of CRISPR Therapeutics AG. All other trademarks and registered trademarks contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may appear without the ^® or ^™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights to these trademarks, service marks and trade names.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Industry Data

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. These statements are often identified by the use of words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “will,” “would” or the negative or plural of these words or similar expressions or variations, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

our plan to consolidate our U.S. offices in the greater Boston area into a single location;

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause our actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified herein, and those discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors,” set forth in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make or enter into.

iii

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results, performance or achievements may be materially different from what we expect. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes statistical and other industry and market data, which we obtained from our own internal estimates and research, as well as from industry and general publications and research, surveys, and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications, studies, and surveys generally state that they have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe that each of these studies and publications is reliable, we have not independently verified market and industry data from third‑party sources. While we believe our internal company research is reliable and the market definitions are appropriate, neither such research nor these definitions have been verified by any independent source.

iv

PART I

Item 1. Business.

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a leading gene editing company focused on the development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics. CRISPR/Cas9 stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) and is a revolutionary technology for gene editing, the process of precisely altering specific sequences of genomic DNA. We aim to apply this technology to disrupt, delete, correct and insert genes to treat genetically-defined diseases and to engineer advanced cellular therapies. We believe that our scientific expertise, together with our gene-editing approach, may enable an entirely new class of highly effective and potentially curative therapies for patients with both rare and common diseases for whom current biopharmaceutical approaches have had limited success. Our most advanced programs target the genetically-defined diseases transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, or TDT, and severe sickle cell disease, or SCD, two hemoglobinopathies with high unmet medical need. We are also progressing several gene-edited allogeneic cell therapy programs, beginning with three allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor T cell, or CAR-T candidates for the treatment of hematological and solid tumor cancers.

The use of CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing was derived from a naturally occurring viral defense mechanism in bacteria and has been described by leading scientific journals as a breakthrough technology. The application of CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing was co-invented by one of our scientific founders, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, the Acting and Founding Director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin, Germany. Dr. Charpentier and her collaborators published work elucidating the mechanism by which the Cas9 endonuclease, a key component of CRISPR/Cas9, can be programmed to cut double-stranded DNA at specific locations. Dr. Charpentier and her collaborator, Dr. Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their groundbreaking work. We have acquired rights to the intellectual property encompassing CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies from Dr. Charpentier and continue to strengthen our intellectual property estate through our own research and additional in-licensing efforts, furthering our leadership in the development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics.

Our product development and partnership strategies are designed to exploit the full potential of the CRISPR/Cas9 platform while maximizing the probability of successfully developing our product candidates. For our most advanced product candidates, we have taken an ex vivo approach in which we edit cells outside of the human body using CRISPR/Cas9 before administering them to the patient. We are also pursuing select in vivo applications, in which we deliver the CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutic directly to target cells within the human body.

Hemoglobinopathies

Our lead product candidate, CTX001, is an investigational ex vivo CRISPR gene-edited therapy that is being evaluated for patients suffering from TDT or severe SCD in which a patient’s hematopoietic stem cells are engineered to produce high levels of fetal hemoglobin (HbF; hemoglobin F) in red blood cells. HbF is a form of the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin that is naturally present at birth and is then replaced by the adult form of hemoglobin. The elevation of HbF by CTX001 has the potential to eliminate transfusion requirements for TDT patients and painful and debilitating vaso-occlusive crises for SCD patients. CTX001 is being developed under a co-development and co-commercialization agreement between us and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, or Vertex.

Beta Thalassemia

We and Vertex are investigating CTX001 in a Phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial, CLIMB THAL-111, that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of CTX001 in patients ages 12 to 35 with TDT. In the fourth quarter of 2019, we expanded the TDT patient population for CTX001 to include beta zero/beta zero subtypes. The first two patients in the trial were treated sequentially and, following data from the initial two patients indicating successful engraftment and an acceptable safety profile, the trial opened for concurrent dosing. CLIMB THAL-111 is designed to follow patients for approximately two years after infusion. Each patient will be asked to participate in a long-term follow-up study. CTX001 has been granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation, as well as Fast Track Designation and Rare Pediatric Disease designation by the FDA for the treatment of TDT. Additionally, CTX001 for the treatment of TDT has received orphan drug designation, or ODD, from the FDA and European Commission.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, we released additional clinical data from the first seven patients with TDT treated with CTX001 in the ongoing CLIMB THAL-111 trial during the Scientific Plenary Session at the American Society of Hematology, or ASH, Annual Meeting and Exposition. For additional information regarding the preliminary clinical data, please see “Business—Our Lead Hemoglobinopathies Product Candidate—CTX001.”

1

Sickle Cell Disease

We and Vertex are also investigating CTX001 in a Phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial, CLIMB SCD-121, that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of CTX001 in patients ages 12 to 35 with severe SCD. Similar to the trial in TDT, the first two patients in the trial were treated sequentially and, following data from the initial two patients indicating successful engraftment and an acceptable safety profile, the trial opened for concurrent dosing. CLIMB SCD-121 is designed to follow patients for approximately two years after infusion. Each patient will be asked to participate in a long-term follow-up study. CTX001 has been granted RMAT designation, as well as Fast Track Designation and Rare Pediatric Disease designation by the FDA for the treatment of SCD. In addition, CTX001 for the treatment of SCD has received ODD from the FDA and European Commission. Additionally, CTX001 has been granted Priority Medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of SCD.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, we released additional clinical data from the first three patients with SCD treated with CTX001 in the ongoing CLIMB SCD-121 trial during the Scientific Plenary Session at the ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition. For additional information regarding the preliminary clinical data, please see “Business—Our Lead Hemoglobinopathies Product Candidate—CTX001.”

Immuno-Oncology

We believe CRISPR/Cas9 has the potential to create the next generation of CAR-T cell therapies that may have a superior product profile compared to current autologous therapies and allow accessibility to broader patient populations. Drawing from the ex vivo gene-editing capabilities gained through our lead programs, we are advancing several immuno-oncology cell therapy programs.

CTX110. Our lead immuno-oncology candidate, CTX110, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T therapy targeting cluster of differentiation 19. CTX110 is being investigated in an ongoing Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trial, CARBON, that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX110 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. In the fourth quarter of 2020, we released preliminary clinical data from the first 11 patients treated with CTX110 in the ongoing CARBON trial. For additional information regarding the preliminary clinical data, please see “Business— Our Lead Immuno-Oncology Product Candidate—CTX110.”

CTX120. CTX120 is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting B-cell maturation antigen. CTX120 is being investigated in an ongoing Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trial that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX120 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. CTX120 has received ODD from the FDA.

CTX130. CTX130 is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting cluster of differentiation 70, or CD70, an antigen expressed on various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. CTX130 is being developed for the treatment of both solid tumors, such as renal cell carcinoma, and T-cell and B-cell hematologic malignancies. CTX130 is being investigated in two ongoing independent Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trials that are designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX130 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory renal cell carcinoma and various types of lymphoma, respectively.

Other Programs

Regenerative Medicine. To further expand the applications of our ex vivo gene-editing expertise, we have increased our efforts in the field of regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine, or the use of stem cells to repair or replace tissue or organ function lost due to disease, damage or age, holds the potential to treat both rare and common diseases. We are pursuing gene-editing approaches to allow allogeneic use of stem cell-derived therapies by enabling immune evasion, improving existing cell function and directing cell fate using CRISPR/Cas9. Our first major effort in this area is in diabetes together with our partner, ViaCyte, Inc., or ViaCyte.

In Vivo. In addition to our ex vivo programs, we are pursuing a number of in vivo gene-editing programs. Our initial in vivo applications target diseases of the liver, lung and muscle and leverage well-established delivery technologies for gene-based therapeutics, such as lipid nanoparticle-based delivery vehicles, or LNPs, and adeno-associated viral vectors, or AAV vectors.

Strategic Partnerships

Given the numerous potential therapeutic applications for CRISPR/Cas9, we have partnered strategically to broaden the indications we can pursue and accelerate development of programs by accessing specific technologies and/or disease-area expertise. We maintain three broad strategic partnerships to develop gene editing-based therapeutics in specific disease areas.

2

Vertex. We established our initial collaboration agreement in 2015 with Vertex, which focused on TDT, SCD, cystic fibrosis and select additional indications. In December 2017, we entered into a joint development and commercialization agreement with Vertex to co-develop and co-commercialize CTX001 as part of that collaboration. In June 2019, we expanded our collaboration and entered into a strategic collaboration and license agreement for the development and commercialization of products for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy type 1. For additional information regarding this partnership, please see “Business—Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations.”

ViaCyte. We entered into a research and collaboration agreement in September 2018 with ViaCyte to pursue the discovery, development and commercialization of gene-edited allogeneic stem cell therapies for the treatment of diabetes. The combination of ViaCyte’s stem cell capabilities and our gene-editing capabilities has the potential to enable a beta-cell replacement product that may deliver durable benefit to patients without the need for immune suppression. For additional information regarding this partnership, please see “Business—Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations.”

Bayer. In the fourth quarter of 2019, we entered into a series of transactions pursuant to which we and Bayer Healthcare LLC, or Bayer, terminated our 2015 agreement, which created the joint venture Casebia Therapeutics Limited Liability Partnership, or Casebia, to discover, develop and commercialize CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing therapeutics to treat the genetic causes of bleeding disorders, autoimmune disease, blindness, hearing loss and heart disease. In connection thereto, Casebia became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours. We and Bayer also entered into a new option agreement pursuant to which Bayer has an option to co-develop and co-commercialize two products for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of certain autoimmune disorders, eye disorders or hemophilia A disorders for a specified period of time, or, under certain circumstances, exclusively license such optioned products. For additional information regarding this partnership, please see “Business—Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations.”

Our mission is to create transformative gene-based medicines for serious human diseases. We believe that our highly experienced team, together with our scientific expertise, product development strategy, partnerships and intellectual property, position us as a leader in the development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics.

Gene Editing Background

There are thousands of diseases caused by aberrant DNA sequences. Traditional small molecule and biologic therapies have had limited success in treating many of these diseases because they fail to address the underlying genetic causes. Newer approaches such as RNA therapeutics and viral gene therapy more directly target the genes related to disease, but each has clear limitations. RNA-based therapies, such as mRNA and siRNA, face challenges with repeat dosing and related toxicities. Non-integrating viral gene therapy platforms, such as AAV, may have limited durability because they do not permanently change the genome and have limited efficacy upon re-administration due to resulting immune responses. Integrating viral gene therapy platforms, such as lentivirus, permanently alter the genome but do so randomly, which leads to the potential for undesirable mutations. Additionally, cells may recognize the transduced genes as foreign and respond by reducing their expression, limiting their efficacy. Thus, while our understanding of genetic diseases has increased tremendously since the mapping of the human genome, our ability to treat them effectively has been limited.

We believe gene editing has the potential to enable a next generation of therapeutics and provide potentially curative therapies to many genetic diseases through precise gene modification. The process of gene editing involves precisely altering DNA sequences within the genomes of cells using enzymes to cut the DNA at specific locations. After a cut is made, natural cellular processes repair the DNA to either silence or correct undesirable sequences, potentially reversing their negative effects. Importantly, because the genome itself is modified in this process, the change is permanent in the patient.

Furthermore, the ability to alter DNA sequences precisely has applications beyond the treatment of genetically-defined diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing could also enable the engineering of genomes of cell-based therapies to make them more efficacious, safer and available to a broader group of patients. Cell therapies have already begun to make a meaningful impact in certain diseases and gene editing could help accelerate that progress across diverse disease areas, including oncology and diabetes.

Earlier generations of gene-editing technologies, such as zinc finger nucleases, or ZFNs, transcription-activator like effector nucleases, or TALENs, and meganucleases, rely on engineered protein-DNA interactions. While these systems were an important first step to demonstrate the potential of gene editing, their development has been challenging in practice due to the complexity of engineering protein-DNA interactions. In contrast, CRISPR/Cas9 is guided by RNA-DNA interactions, which are more predictable and straightforward to engineer and apply. Given the advantages of CRISPR/Cas systems, multiple academic groups have developed new technologies based on CRISPR/Cas9, such as base editing and prime editing. While still nascent, such new CRISPR/Cas-based technologies could have advantages over existing gene-editing technologies, including CRISPR/Cas9 technologies, in select applications.

3

The CRISPR/Cas9 Technology

CRISPR/Cas9 evolved as a naturally occurring defense mechanism that protects bacteria against viral infections. Dr. Charpentier and her collaborators elucidated this mechanism and developed ways to adapt and simplify it for use in gene editing. In recognition of this groundbreaking work, Dr. Charpentier was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with her collaborator, Dr. Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology they described consists of three basic components: CRISPR-associated protein 9, or Cas9, CRISPR RNA, or crRNA, and trans-activating CRISPR RNA, or tracrRNA. Cas9, in combination with these two RNA molecules, is described as “molecular scissors” that can make specific cuts and edits in selected double-stranded DNA.

Dr. Charpentier and her collaborators further simplified the system for use in gene editing by combining the crRNA and tracrRNA into a single RNA molecule called a guide RNA. The guide RNA binds to Cas9 and can be programmed to direct the Cas9 enzyme to a specific DNA sequence based on Watson-Crick base pairing rules. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology can be used to make cuts in DNA at specific sites of targeted genes, providing a powerful tool for developing gene editing-based therapeutics.

Once the DNA is cut, the cell uses naturally occurring DNA repair mechanisms to rejoin the cut ends. If a single cut is made, a process called non-homologous end joining can result in the addition or deletion of base pairs, disrupting the original DNA sequence and causing gene inactivation. A larger fragment of DNA can also be deleted by using two guide RNAs that target separate sites. After cleavage at each site, non-homologous end joining unites the separate ends, deleting the intervening sequence. Alternatively, if a DNA template is added alongside the CRISPR/Cas9 machinery, the cell can correct a gene or even insert a new gene through a process called homology directed repair.

CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing

We believe that CRISPR/Cas9 is a versatile technology that can be used to disrupt, delete, correct or insert genes. We intend to take advantage of the versatility and modularity of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to adapt and rapidly customize individual components for specific disease applications. Consequently, we believe that CRISPR/Cas9 may form the basis of a new class of therapeutics with the potential to treat both rare and common diseases.

4

Our Pipeline

The following table summarizes the status of our product development pipeline:

Hematopoietic Programs

Background

We are primarily utilizing ex vivo approaches to treat diseases related to the hematopoietic system, which is the system of organs and tissues, such as bone marrow, the spleen and lymph nodes, involved in the production of blood. Today, many of the hematopoietic system diseases we are targeting are treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants, or allo-HSCT. In performing allo-HSCT, physicians replace a patient’s blood-forming cells that contain the defective gene with cells obtained from a different person that contain the normal gene. Unfortunately, not all patients are able to be matched with suitable donors. Patients who do undergo allo-HSCT face a high risk of complications such as infections related to immunosuppression, transplant rejection and graft-versus-host disease, where immune cells in the transplanted tissue (the graft) recognize the recipient (the host) as “foreign” and begin to attack the host’s cells.

In contrast to allo-HSCT, our approach is to harvest stem cells directly from the patient, edit the target gene ex vivo, and reintroduce those same cells back into the patient. We believe this ex vivo gene-editing approach, which uses the patient’s own cells, may provide better results than allo-HSCT.

Our Lead Programs—Hemoglobinopathies

Hemoglobinopathies are a diverse group of inherited blood disorders that result from variations in the synthesis or structure of hemoglobin. Our lead program in hemoglobinopathies, for which we have partnered with Vertex, aims to develop a single, potentially curative CRISPR/Cas9-based therapy to treat both beta thalassemia and SCD. These diseases are caused by mutations in the gene encoding the beta globin protein. Beta globin is an essential component of hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that delivers oxygen and removes carbon dioxide throughout the body. Several factors make these attractive lead indications, including: (i) high unmet medical need, (ii) compelling market potential, (iii) well-understood genetics and (iv) the ability to employ an ex vivo gene disruption strategy.

5

Beta Thalassemia

Overview

Beta thalassemia is a blood disorder that is associated with a reduction in the production of hemoglobin. This disease is caused by mutations that give rise to the insufficient expression of the beta globin protein, which can lead to symptoms related not only to the lack of hemoglobin, but also to the buildup of unpaired alpha globin proteins in red blood cells. The severity of symptoms associated with beta thalassemia varies depending on the levels of functional beta globin present in the blood cells. The unpaired alpha globin chains are toxic to red blood cells and reduce red blood cell lifespan. In the most severe cases, described as beta thalassemia major, functional beta globin is either completely absent or reduced, resulting in severe anemia. In these patients, the bone marrow cannot keep pace with the destruction of red blood cells, and thus these patients require regular blood transfusions. While chronic blood transfusions can be effective at addressing symptoms, they often lead to iron overload, progressive heart and liver failure, and eventually early death. Patients with mild forms of beta thalassemia may experience some mild anemia or even be asymptomatic. The total worldwide incidence of beta thalassemia is estimated to be 60,000 births annually, the total prevalence in the United States and the EU is estimated to be approximately 16,000 and there are over 200,000 people worldwide who are alive and registered as receiving treatment for the disease.

Limitations of current treatment options

The most common treatment for beta thalassemia is chronic blood transfusions. Transfusion-dependent patients typically receive transfusions every two to four weeks and chronic administration of blood often leads to elevated levels of iron in the body, which can cause organ damage over a relatively short period of time. Patients are often given iron chelators, or medicines to reduce iron levels in the blood, which are associated with their own significant toxicities. In developing countries, where chronic transfusions are not available, most patients die in early childhood. Also, a disease-modifying therapy for beta thalassemia, Reblozyl (luspatercept-aamt), received FDA approval in 2019.

A potentially curative therapy for this disease is allo-HSCT, but few patients elect to have this procedure given its associated morbidity and mortality and the lack of matched and willing donors. In addition, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, gave a conditional marketing authorization to Zynteglo (autologous CD34⁺ cells encoding β^A-T87Q-globin gene), a lentiviral gene therapy, for the treatment of certain patients with TDT in 2019. We believe that our therapeutic approach could offer a potentially curative therapy for this devastating disease.

Sickle Cell Disease

Overview

SCD is an inherited disorder of red blood cells resulting from a specific mutation in the beta globin gene that causes abnormal red blood cell function. Under conditions of low oxygen concentration, the abnormal hemoglobin proteins aggregate within the red blood cells causing them to become sickled in shape and inflexible. These sickled cells obstruct blood vessels, restricting blood flow to organs, ultimately resulting in severe pain, infections, stroke, overall poor quality of life and early death. Patients also experience increased hemolysis, leading to anemia. The worldwide incidence of SCD is estimated to be 300,000 births annually and there are 20-25 million people worldwide with the disease. In the United States and the European Union, the total prevalence is estimated to be 150,000 individuals.

Limitations of current treatment options

As with beta thalassemia, in regions where access to modern medical care is available, standard treatment for patients with SCD who have high levels of hemolysis involves chronic blood transfusions, which has the same associated risks of iron overload and toxicities associated with chelation therapy. The FDA and/or EMA have approved several disease-modifying therapies for SCD as well, including hydroxyurea, Adakveo (crizanlizumab-tmca) and Oxbryta (voxelotor). Two disease-modifying therapies for SCD, Adakveo (crizanlizumab-tmca) and Oxbryta (voxelotor), also received FDA approval in 2019. Allo-HSCT is another potential treatment option. While allo-HSCT provides the only potentially curative therapeutic path for SCD, it is often avoided given the significant risk of transplant-related morbidity and mortality in these patients and the lack of matched and willing donors.

Our Gene-Editing Approach

Our therapeutic approach to treating beta thalassemia and SCD employs gene editing to upregulate the expression of the gamma globin protein, a hemoglobin subunit that is commonly present only in newborn infants. Hemoglobin that contains gamma globin instead of beta globin protein is referred to as fetal hemoglobin, or HbF. In most individuals HbF disappears in infancy as gamma globin is replaced by beta globin through naturally occurring suppression of the gamma globin gene. The symptoms of beta thalassemia and SCD typically do not manifest until several months after birth, when the levels of HbF have declined considerably. Some patients with beta thalassemia or SCD have elevated levels of HbF that persist into adulthood, a condition known as hereditary

6

persistence of fetal hemoglobin, or HPFH. Patients with HPFH are often asymptomatic, or experience much milder forms of disease. This protective HPFH condition has been shown to result from specific changes to these patients’ genomic DNA, either in the region of the globin genes or in certain genetic regulatory elements that control the expression levels of the globin genes.

Relationship between level of HbF and morbidity in sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia

An alternative CRISPR/Cas9 approach to treating hemoglobinopathies would be to correct the mutated beta globin gene. We have chosen the HbF upregulation strategy as our initial approach given the efficiency and consistency of the gene disruption strategy involved, the ability of this strategy to counteract a wide variety of different beta globin mutations, including patients with beta thalassemia, and the natural history data supporting absence of symptoms in patients with HPFH.

Our Lead Hemoglobinopathies Product Candidate—CTX001

Our lead product candidate, CTX001, uses CRISPR/Cas9 to mimic the high levels of HbF that occur naturally in HPFH patients. To achieve this effect, CTX001 uses CRISPR/Cas9 to disrupt the erythroid specific enhancer of the BCL11A gene. This gene encodes the BCL11A protein, a critical factor that keeps HbF levels low in most individuals. Disrupting the BCL11A erythroid specific enhancer reduces BCL11A expression specifically in erythroid lineage cells, thereby upregulating expression of gamma globin and increasing HbF levels.

Our therapeutic approach involves isolating hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs, which give rise to red blood cells, from a patient, treating those cells ex vivo with CRISPR/Cas9 to disrupt the BCL11A erythroid specific enhancer and reintroducing the edited cells back into the patient. We believe that once reintroduced into the patient, these genetically modified stem cells will produce red blood cells that contain high levels of HbF. In beta thalassemia, elevating HbF may reduce the toxicity of unpaired alpha globin chains, thereby increasing red blood cell lifespan. Consequently, CTX001 may have the potential to reduce or even eliminate the need for transfusions in these patients. In SCD, elevated HbF may prevent a cell from sickling, and so achieving sufficiently high HbF in most red blood cells could significantly reduce or eliminate the symptoms associated with the disease.

We believe our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing strategy may have significant advantages over other gene therapies in development for the treatment of hemoglobinopathies. For example, lentivirus-based treatments involve a random integration of one or more copies of the globin gene throughout the genome. The expression levels of the newly introduced gene can vary depending on the exact location of the DNA in the genome, leading to inconsistent and variable levels of expression. We believe our strategy may lead to more uniform globin expression across a high percentage of cells. In addition, with each random lentiviral integration, a mutation may be created, which may have an associated safety concern, including the potential to cause cancer. In contrast, CRISPR/Cas9 targets a specific genomic site for editing, and to date we have detected no off-target activity for our CTX001 guide RNA.

Preclinical studies

In preclinical studies using CTX001, our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing process demonstrated the ability to edit HSCs with approximately 80% allelic editing efficiency at clinical scale in a bulk population of cells. We observed this high editing efficiency across all stem cell subsets, including in long-term repopulating HSCs. After in vitro erythroid differentiation, this editing resulted in HbF accounting for greater than 30% of total hemoglobin in edited cells, compared to approximately 10% HbF in the control arm of the study. On a per cell basis, more than 90% of cells had modifications at the desired location, with 76% of the cells having edits in both copies of the target gene and 16% of the cells having edits made on one copy of the target gene. We estimate that after in vitro

7

erythroid differentiation this editing rate results in HbF expression levels of greater than 35% in cells that have edits on both copies of the target gene, and over 20% for cells edited at one gene.

Editing efficiency in human CD34⁺ cells and resulting HbF ratio after in vitro erythroid differentiation

In preclinical mouse models designed to test the safety of CTX001, gene-edited HSCs maintained the ability to engraft long term and to differentiate into multiple lineages. Toxicology studies revealed no significant findings and no difference in the biodistribution of edited cells compared to controls. Finally, no off-target activity was detectable for the CTX001 guide RNA after assessing over 5,000 homology-based sites and over 2,000 homology-independent sites.

CTX001 engraftment in vivo in mice¹

8

Clinical Trials

We and Vertex are investigating CTX001 in two Phase 1/2 open-label clinical trials designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of CTX001 in patients ages 12 to 35 with TDT, CLIMB THAL-111, and severe SCD, CLIMB SCD-121, respectively. On December 5, 2020, we and Vertex announced safety and efficacy data from the first ten patients treated with CTX001 for TDT or severe SCD in these ongoing clinical trials. Results were shared during the Scientific Plenary Session at the ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, as well as a subset of the results published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These clinical trials are ongoing.

Schematic of study procedures for the CLIMB THAL-111 and CLIMB SCD-121 Phase 1/2 trials

On December 5, 2020, we presented data on seven patients with TDT who had reached at least three months of follow-up after CTX001 dosing (range: 3.8 to 21.5 months) and therefore could be assessed for initial safety and efficacy results. These seven patients all showed a similar pattern of response, with rapid and sustained increases in total hemoglobin and HbF, as well as transfusion independence at last analysis. All seven patients had normal to near-normal total hemoglobin levels at last visit, including three patients with severe beta zero/beta zero and IVS-I-110 genotypes. Total hemoglobin levels ranged from 9.7 to 14.1 g/dL and HbF levels ranged from 40.9% to 97.7% at last visit among all seven patients. The first patient with TDT who received CTX001 had a total hemoglobin level of 14.1 g/dL and HbF level of 13.1 g/dL at last visit, 18 months after CTX001 dosing. In all five patients with at least six months of follow-up, more than 99% of red blood cells, or RBCs, expressed HbF, indicating pancellular distribution of HbF. In addition, the available bone marrow allelic editing data, encompassing four patients with six months of follow-up and from one patient with 12 months of follow-up, demonstrated a durable effect. The elevation of HbF translated into transfusion independence in all patients. All seven patients ceased receiving packed RBC, or pRBC, transfusions soon after CTX001 infusion, with the last pRBC transfusion occurring between 0.7 and 2.0 months after CTX001 infusion. The first patient with TDT who received CTX001 had remained transfusion-free for over 20 months as of the data cutoff date.

9

Clinically Meaningful HbF and Total Hb Are Achieved Early and Maintained in TDT

Duration of Transfusion Independence After CTX001 Infusion

10

The safety data from all seven patients were generally consistent with autologous stem cell transplant and myeloablative conditioning. The majority of adverse events, or AEs, occurred within the first 60 days after CTX001 infusion. Two patients experienced a combined total of five serious AEs, or SAEs, related or possibly related to busulfan only: venoocclusive liver disease (in both patients), febrile neutropenia (two events in one patient) and colitis; all of these resolved. One patient experienced four SAEs related or possibly related to CTX001: headache, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, or HLH, acute respiratory distress syndrome and idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (the latter also related to busulfan). All SAEs occurred in the context of HLH and have resolved. No SAEs related to CTX001 were reported in the other patients.

CLIMB-121 Trial in Severe SCD

On December 5, 2020, we presented data on three patients with SCD who had reached at least three months of follow-up after CTX001 dosing (range: 3.8 to 16.6 months) and therefore could be assessed for initial safety and efficacy results. All three patients showed a similar pattern of response, with rapid and sustained increases in total hemoglobin and HbF, as well as elimination of vaso-occlusive crises, or VOCs, through last analysis. All three patients had normal to near normal total hemoglobin levels at last visit, including total hemoglobin levels from 11.5 to 13.2 g/dL and HbF levels from 31.3% to 48.0%. In the two patients with at least six months of follow-up, more than 98% of RBCs expressed HbF, indicating pancellular distribution of HbF. In addition, bone marrow allelic editing data collected from one patient with six months of follow-up and from one patient with 12 months of follow-up after CTX001 infusion demonstrated a durable effect. The elevation of HbF translated into clinical benefit in all three patients. None of the patients had experienced a VOC since CTX001 infusion, while these patients experienced an average of 4.0 to 7.5 VOCs per year in the two years prior to consenting to study participation. The first patient with SCD who received CTX001 had remained free of VOCs for over 16 months as of the data cutoff date. Finally, all three patients had detectable haptoglobin and improved lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, indicating no evidence of hemolysis.

Clinically Meaningful HbF and Total Hb Are Achieved Early and Maintained in SCD

11

Duration of Freedom from VOCs after CTX001 Infusion

The safety data from all three patients were generally consistent with autologous stem cell transplant and myeloablative conditioning. The majority of AEs occurred within the first sixty days of CTX001 infusion. After CTX001 infusion, only one patient experienced SAEs: sepsis (related to busulfan), cholelithiasis and abdominal pain (both unrelated to any study drug); all of these resolved. There were no SAEs considered related to CTX001.

CLIMB THAL-111 and CLIMB SCD-121 are ongoing. More than 20 patients have been dosed with CTX001 across both studies to date.

Immuno-Oncology Programs

Over the past several years, interest in the oncology community has grown rapidly in the field of immuno-oncology, or treatments that harness the immune system to attack cancer cells. Engineered immune cell therapy is one such approach, in which immune system cells such as T cells are genetically modified to enable them to recognize and attack cancerous cells.

Engineered cell therapy has demonstrated encouraging results leading to three approvals for autologous CD19-targeted CAR-T products, and may become an entirely new class of oncology therapeutics; however, realizing this full potential will require overcoming some key challenges. Most engineered cell therapies in development require unique products to be created for each patient treated, an approach that has in the past proven challenging and cost prohibitive in the field of oncology. Additionally, these versions of engineered cell therapies appear limited in their ability to treat solid tumors and have demonstrated sub-optimal safety profiles. In contrast, allogeneic engineered T cell therapies could have immediate availability because of their ability to be administered “off-the-shelf”, improved potency due to the use of healthy-donor starting material, greater consistency since each batch yields many doses, improved access by avoiding the need for patient apheresis, and flexible dosing, whether through dose titration or re-dosing.

We expect that the cellular engineering strategies that are ultimately successful in immuno-oncology will involve multiple genetic modifications, an application for which we believe CRISPR/Cas9 will play a central role. While other gene-editing platforms could potentially be used for these purposes, CRISPR/Cas9 is particularly well-suited for multiplexed editing, which is the modification and/or insertion of multiple genes within a single cell. Current gene-editing techniques that require different protein enzymes for each genetic modification may be limited in the number of edits they can make concurrently due to efficiency, cytotoxicity and/or manufacturing challenges. In contrast, CRISPR/Cas9 has the potential to efficiently make multiple edits using a single Cas9 protein and multiple small guide RNA molecules.

12

In our immuno-oncology cell therapies, we plan to use the multiplexing ability of CRISPR/Cas9 not only to enable allogeneic administration, but also to introduce additional genetic edits to improve the efficacy and safety profile of these product candidates. Such edits could include the removal of immune checkpoints or introduction of safety elements. We continue to expand our multiplexing capabilities to help us realize the full potential of engineered cell therapy in immuno-oncology across all tumor types, including solid tumors. Given the important role we believe CRISPR/Cas9 will play in engineered cell therapy going forward we have thus far elected to retain full ownership of our immuno-oncology programs.  

Our Lead Immuno-Oncology Product Candidate—CTX110

Our lead immuno-oncology product candidate, CTX110, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting CD19-positive malignancies, such as certain lymphomas and leukemias. A primary aim of CTX110 is to overcome the inefficiency and cost of creating a unique product for each patient with a given tumor type by treating many different patients from a single batch, which we refer to as being an “off-the-shelf” therapy. To generate CTX110, we make three modifications to T cells taken from healthy donors using our gene-editing technology: (i) the T cell receptor, or TCR, is eliminated to reduce the risk of graft versus host disease, or GvHD, from the product candidate, (ii) a CD19-directed CAR is inserted site-specifically into the TRAC gene and (iii) the class I major histocompatibility complex, MHC I, is removed from the cell surface in order to improve the persistence of the CAR-T cells in an “off-the-shelf” setting. We believe this approach will have advantages over other allogeneic CAR-T products in development that semi-randomly insert the CAR using an integrating virus and do not include the MHC I knockout to increase persistence.

Preclinical studies

As shown in the figure below, we have demonstrated the ability to perform the edits necessary to generate CTX110 at high efficiency, and that in preclinical testing CTX110 prolonged the survival of mice with a CD19-positive xenograft tumor model that is comparable to what is seen with the current generation CAR-T products.

Efficient production of CTX110 via multiplexed editing and prolonged survival of CTX110-treated mice in a disseminated Nalm6 xenograft tumor model

Clinical Trials

We are currently investigating CTX110 in a Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trial, CARBON, that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX110 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. The CARBON clinical trial is ongoing.

13

CARBON Trial Design

On October 21, 2020, we shared preliminary data from our CARBON clinical trial. As of the September 28, 2020, data cutoff, 12 patients had been enrolled and infused with CTX110. Data were reported for the 11 patients who had at least completed their one-month assessment as of the data cutoff date. All 11 patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or DLBCL, including high grade lymphoma (e.g., triple hit), transformed follicular lymphoma, or tFL, and Richter’s Transformation. Patients were infused with CTX110 following three days of lymphodepletion using fludarabine (30 mg/m²/day) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²/day). Dose escalation began at 30 million CAR-positive T cells (Dose Level 1; DL1) and escalated to the highest dose of 600 million CAR-positive T cells (Dose Level 4; DL4).

Early evidence of dose-dependent anti-tumor activity was seen with CTX110. Disease assessment was performed by centralized independent radiological review according to the 2014 Lugano response criteria. Complete response was achieved at Dose Level 2, or DL2, Dose Level 3, or DL3, and DL4. At DL3, two out of four patients had a complete response. These two patients remained in complete response as of the data cutoff date.

14

Dose-Dependent Responses Observed with CTX110

Complete Responses with CTX110 Showed Durability at Month 3 and Beyond

The four patients with complete response across all dose levels had deep responses, including the complete resolution of extranodal disease, normalization of all nodal disease to 1.5 centimeters or smaller and a Deauville score of two or lower. Additionally, one of these patients who had 30% lymphoblasts in the bone marrow achieved complete clearance after CTX110 infusion. Complete response was achieved in patients with relapsed disease (including relapse from autologous stem cell transplant), as well as in patients who were primary refractory and who had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

15

Dose-Dependent Reduction in Tumor Size with CTX110

At DL2 and above, CTX110 was detected at multiple time points in all patients, with peak expansion occurring at one to two weeks post-infusion and cells detected as late as 180 days post-infusion. Responses were achieved without the use of more toxic lymphodepletion agents, consistent with the engineering of CTX110 for immune evasion.

Safety Data with CTX110 at DL3 and Below

16

Across the ten patients treated at DL1, DL2 and DL3, no DLTs were observed. There were no cases of GvHD despite high HLA-mismatch between allogeneic CAR-T donors and patients. No infusion reactions to either lymphodepleting chemotherapy or CTX110 were observed. Cytokine Release Syndrome, or CRS, occurred in three patients (30%) and in each case was Grade 2 or below and resolved with tocilizumab administration. One patient (10%) had Grade 2 Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome, or ICANS, that improved within 24 hours with standard interventions. Two additional serious adverse events (periorbital cellulitis and febrile neutropenia) occurred after CTX110 infusion, both of which resolved and were determined to be unrelated to disease progression or CTX110.

One patient received DL4 of CTX110. On Day 5, the patient experienced Grade 2 CRS which resolved in 5 days. The PET/CT assessment at Day 25 showed the patient had achieved a complete response. The following day, the patient was hospitalized with febrile neutropenia and developed symptoms of short-term memory loss and confusion. The symptoms eventually progressed to significant obtundation that required intubation. He was initially treated for ICANS with steroids, anakinra and intrathecal chemotherapy without improvement. The patient was later found to have reactivation of HHV-6 and HHV-6 encephalitis and treated with antiviral therapy. The decision was made to withdraw supportive care and the patient died 52 days after CTX110 infusion.

CTX120

Our second immune-oncology candidate, or CTX120, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting BCMA and is in development for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. BCMA has attractive properties for CAR-T cell therapy, namely expression on the surface of B-lineage cells, especially the plasma cells involved in multiple myeloma, and absence from other tissues and cell types. As a result, BCMA has become a promising target for autologous CAR-T cell therapy. We believe an allogeneic approach may have distinct advantages over autologous CAR-T in multiple myeloma given the poor health of patient T cells following many lines of prior therapy.

Preclinical Studies

To generate CTX120, we make the same three modifications to healthy-donor T cells as we do for CTX110 but insert a BCMA-specific CAR. CTX120 leverages many of the capabilities and reagents developed for CTX110, accelerating its path into development. As depicted in the figure below, in preclinical studies of CTX120, we observe complete elimination of a xenograft multiple myeloma tumor model in all mice treated with CTX120.

Elimination of a subcutaneous RPMI-8226 multiple myeloma model by CTX120

Clinical Trials

We are currently investigating CTX120 in a Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trial that is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX120 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the progress to date in this program, CTX120 has been granted Orphan Drug designation from the FDA.

17

CTX130

Our third immune-oncology candidate, or CTX130, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting CD70, an antigen expressed on various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. CTX130 is in development for the treatment of both solid tumors, such as renal cell carcinoma, and T-cell and B-cell hematologic malignancies. Several cancers express CD70, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, certain T cell lymphomas, renal cell carcinoma, glioblastoma and pancreatic, lung and ovarian cancers, while normal tissues do not express or show extremely limited expression of CD70. This target enables us to transition from hematological cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, to solid tumor cancers, such as renal cell carcinoma.

Preclinical Studies

To generate CTX130, we include additional editing beyond the three modifications used in CTX110 and CTX120. As shown in the figure below, in preclinical studies of CTX130, we observed complete elimination of a xenograft model of renal cell carcinoma in all mice treated with CTX130.

Elimination of a subcutaneous A498 renal cell carcinoma model by CTX130

Clinical Trials

We are currently investigating CTX130 in two ongoing independent Phase 1, single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trials that are designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX130 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory renal cell carcinoma and various types of lymphoma, respectively.

Regenerative Medicine Programs

Regenerative medicine, or the use of stem cells to repair or replace tissue or organ function lost due to disease, damage or age, holds potential to treat both rare and common diseases. The field is approaching the point where clinical proofs of concept may begin to emerge. Most of these efforts use unmodified stem cells, and the potential to genetically engineer these cells via gene editing is large. We are pursuing gene-editing approaches to allow allogeneic use of stem cell-derived therapies by enabling immune evasion, improving existing cell function and directing cell fate using CRISPR/Cas9. Our first major effort in this area is in diabetes together with our partner, ViaCyte.

ViaCyte Collaboration in Diabetes

Clinical data with islet transplants indicate that beta-cell replacement approaches may offer benefit to patients with insulin-requiring diabetes. ViaCyte has pioneered the approach of generating pancreatic-lineage cells from stem cells and delivering them safely and efficiently to patients. PEC-Direct, ViaCyte’s lead product candidate currently being evaluated in the clinic, uses a non-immunoprotective delivery device that permits direct vascularization of the cell therapy. This approach has the potential to deliver durable benefit; however, because the patient’s immune system will identify these cells as foreign, PEC-Direct will require long-term

18

immunosuppression to avoid rejection. As a result, PEC-Direct is being developed as a therapy for the subset of patients with type 1 diabetes at high risk for complications.

Our gene-editing technology offers the potential to protect the transplanted cells from the patient’s immune system by ex vivo editing of immune-modulatory genes within the stem cell line used to produce the pancreatic-lineage cells. We believe that the speed, specificity and multiplexing efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 make our technology well suited to this task. We have established expertise in immune-evasive gene editing through our allogeneic CAR-T programs. The combination of ViaCyte’s stem cell capabilities and our gene-editing capabilities has the potential to enable a beta-cell replacement product that may deliver durable benefit to patients without the need for immune suppression.

In Vivo Programs

We are also pursuing treatments for several genetic diseases beyond the hemoglobinopathies. Most of these programs involve in vivo gene editing, or delivery of a CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutic directly to tissues within the human body. Our initial in vivo applications will leverage well-established delivery technologies, such as LNPs and AAV vectors.

We are pursuing liver diseases because delivery of nucleic acid therapies into the liver has been clinically established and validated delivery technologies are now available. We believe this proof of concept reduces the challenges associated with delivering CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics in vivo to the liver. Within the liver we are pursuing diseases that have well understood genetic linkages, such as Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia, or GSDIa. Evidence suggests that correction of the mutant gene in only a small percentage of liver cells may have a significant therapeutic effect in this disease, which makes the gene correction strategy feasible.

Glycogen Storage Disease Ia

GSDIa, also known as Von Gierke disease, is an autosomal recessive inborn error of glucose metabolism caused by a mutation in the G6PC gene, which encodes the glucose-6-phosphatase protein, or G6Pase. In patients with GSDIa, the lack of G6Pase prevents the release of glucose from the liver, resulting in accumulation of a large chain form of glucose known as glycogen. The inability of patients with GSDIa to regulate glucose levels leads to hypoglycemia, or low blood glucose, and high levels of lactic acid when patients are not eating, requiring patients to adhere to burdensome dietary regimes. GSDIa patients also face long-term risks such as growth delay, neuropathy and kidney stones. Additionally, due to the accumulation of glycogen in the liver, 70% to 80% of patients over 25 years of age will develop hepatocellular adenomas, a type of non-cancerous growth in the liver, of which approximately 10% will progress to hepatocellular carcinoma, a potentially fatal liver cancer. There are approximately 1,000 new cases of GSDIa per year worldwide.

There are currently no disease-modifying treatment options for patients with GSDIa. Any disruption in carbohydrate delivery may lead to low blood sugar levels, which can cause life-threatening consequences including seizure, coma and death. To minimize the risk of acute complications, patients are required to adhere to highly burdensome, lifelong dietary regimens such as overnight administration of uncooked cornstarch or a slow-release carbohydrate product such as Glycosade. These regimens have a high rate of non-compliance, leading to increased risk of serious long-term complications.

We are developing a CRISPR/Cas9 product candidate to correct the mutation in GSDIa patients. Animal model experiments have demonstrated that the addition of functional copies of the G6PC gene can correct the deficiency of G6Pase protein in GSDIa and that as little as 3% of normal levels of G6Pase can restore the equilibrium of glucose and glycogen in the bloodstream and liver. Our approach is to correct the G6PC gene directly in its native location. We believe this direct gene correction will result in appropriate expression of the G6Pase protein. Other methods rely on adding copies of the gene through viral delivery methods, which we believe may lead to overexpression of the G6Pase protein and ineffective control of glucose levels.

Vertex Partnered Programs

We have partnered certain of our programs in other disease areas, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, myotonic dystrophy type 1, or DM1, and cystic fibrosis, or CF. We have entered into collaboration agreements with respect to these three programs with Vertex, a global leader in rare diseases with extensive disease area expertise in CF. We believe that our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology is well suited to address DMD, DM1 and CF, all of which have significant patient populations with high unmet medical need.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)

DMD is an X-linked recessive genetic disease caused by mutations in the dystrophin gene, which results in a lack of the dystrophin protein. Because dystrophin plays a key structural role in muscle fiber function, the absence of this protein in muscle cells

19

leads to significant cell damage and ultimately causes muscle cell death and fibrosis. Patients with the disease experience muscle degeneration, loss of mobility and premature death. DMD is among the most prevalent severe genetic diseases, occurring in one in 3,300 male births worldwide. There are currently two approved disease-modifying therapies in the United States for the treatment of DMD, one for patients who have confirmed mutations of the dystrophin gene amenable to exon 51 skipping and one for patients who have confirmed mutations of the dystrophin gene amenable to exon 53 skipping. These mutations affect about 13% and 8% of the DMD population, respectively.

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1)

DM1 is an autosomal genetic disease caused by the expansion of a CTG trinucleotide repeat in the noncoding region of the DMPK gene. The disease affects the skeletal and smooth muscle, as well as other organ systems, such as the eye, heart, endocrine system, and central nervous system. The clinical manifestations of DM1 span a continuum from mild to severe. Based on these phenotypes, DM1 is classified into three somewhat overlapping forms: mild, classic and congenital. Patients with mild DM1 have normal lifespans and typically develop cataracts and experience mild sustained muscle contractions, or myotonia. Those with classic DM1 tend to have muscle weakness and wasting, myotonia, cataracts and often abnormalities in cardiac conduction, and may become physically disabled and have shortened lifespans. Patients with congenital DM1 commonly have intellectual disability and typically have hypotonia and severe generalized weakness at birth, often with respiratory insufficiency and early death. DM1 affects around 1 in 8,000 people worldwide. No approved therapies exist to treat the underlying disease; instead, most interventions to date aim to address specific symptoms of the disease.

Cystic Fibrosis (CF)

CF is a progressive disease caused by mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator, or CFTR, gene resulting in the loss or reduced function of the CFTR protein. Patients with CF develop thick mucus in vital organs, particularly in the lungs, pancreas and gastrointestinal tract. As a result, CF patients experience chronic severe respiratory infections, chronic lung inflammation, poor absorption of nutrients, progressive respiratory failure and early mortality. The median age of death from CF in the United States was 31 years in 2017, with most deaths resulting from respiratory failure. CF is an orphan disease that is estimated to effect more than 70,000 patients in the United States and Europe. CF patients require lifelong treatment with multiple daily medications and hours of self-care. They often require frequent hospitalizations and sometimes even lung transplantation, which can prolong survival but is not curative.

Bayer Partnered Programs

We are also investigating programs for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of certain autoimmune disorders, eye disorders and hemophilia A disorders, from which Bayer has options to either co-develop and co-commercialize two products with us or, under certain circumstances, exclusively license such optioned products.

20

Further Unlocking the Potential of Our CRISPR/Cas9 Platform

We are working to optimize our CRISPR/Cas9 platform. Our key areas of focus are described below.

Nuclease Engineering

The Cas9 nucleases found in nature are highly efficient and specific. We believe that for many gene-editing applications, the naturally occurring Cas9 variants have all the properties required to support an effective therapeutic. However, we also see potential in certain disease areas and organ systems where modified versions of Cas9 may be more effective, and we are working internally and through our external collaborations to engineer Cas9.

Our research and development efforts seek to enhance several characteristics of Cas9, including size, specificity, immunogenicity and ability to support different types of editing strategies. We believe that the process of optimizing these different parameters may yield novel Cas9 versions with different properties, each of which may be best suited to a certain disease area or type of genetic editing.

Guide RNA Optimization

Selecting the sequence for guide RNAs is a critical step in the process of designing our product candidates. Once we have chosen a gene-editing strategy, we seek to identify guide RNAs that will perform the desired edit with high efficiency and with undetectable or extremely low off-target cutting. While computational models can predict efficiency and off-target effects with reasonable accuracy, we believe that a combination of computation and experimental approaches is necessary to reliably select the best possible guide RNAs.

Our guide RNA selection process combines bioinformatics and experimental assays to enable the screening of large numbers of guide RNAs in each experiment. This process starts with proprietary bioinformatics algorithms that select a large pool of guide RNAs that are predicted to have desired properties. These guides are then tested for target site cutting efficiency using a high-throughput screening platform in a model cell line. The most efficient guides are then put through two screening processes for possible off-target effects. First, bioinformatics algorithms are used to identify the 10 to 20 sites in the genome that are most likely to show off-target effects, and these sites are examined through high-throughput assays for empirical off-target cutting. Second, homology-independent screening is performed to identify any potential off-target cutting, even at unpredicted locations. Finally, a small subset of guides with the highest efficiency and lowest off-target potential are tested in the cell type of therapeutic interest before choosing a lead guide or guides for our program.

21

Advanced Editing

While gene correction is achievable today using CRISPR/Cas9, it is more difficult and has lower efficacy than the more straightforward gene disruption strategy. Our initial gene correction programs target diseases in which therapeutic efficacy can be achieved through correction of only a small percentage of cells, while other potential indications may require correction of a significantly higher percentage of cells. We are working to increase the efficiency of gene correction to facilitate the potential treatment of these additional indications.

A central focus of our development efforts is to optimize the correction rates in cell types where rates of correction are typically low. Some of this optimization is being done internally, to test the influence of different parameters of the CRISPR/Cas9 system on correction efficiency. We are also collaborating more broadly with leaders in the DNA repair field, to explore other approaches to optimize correction rates.

We are also focused on expanding our ability to perform multiple edits simultaneously. In contrast to other gene-editing technologies, which require extensive protein engineering and an additional construct for each new genetic target, CRISPR/Cas9 only requires a new guide RNA using simple Watson-Crick base pairing to target a new genetic locus. As a result, one can easily perform many edits at once using CRISPR/Cas9, a process known as multiplexing. We believe multiplexing holds promise in cell therapies, where making several modifications may lead to a safer and more efficacious therapy. Our research efforts in this area emphasize developing strategies to keep editing rates high while multiplexing without increasing the risk of off-target activity.

Synthetic Biology

The application of engineering principles to biological systems, broadly known as synthetic biology, could facilitate the development of improved cellular therapeutics. Novel strategies and tools in this area, such genetic circuits to regulate gene expression based on Boolean logic, may allow us to control specific cellular activity, such as the secretion of a protein, in response to a selected input, such as an administered small molecule or a marker sensed on a cell surface. We believe synthetic biology holds promise when combined with CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing because CRISPR/Cas9 enables the precise engineering of such circuits into the genomes of cell therapies in order to improve their therapeutic properties. Given this potential, we have active efforts to develop and test such synthetic biology tools for incorporation into future immuno-oncology and regenerative medicine cell therapies.

Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations

We intend to develop CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics both independently and in collaboration with current and potential future corporate partners. We view strategic partnerships as a core component of our strategy, allowing us to access capabilities and resources in support of our therapeutic programs. We have established three broad strategic partnerships to develop gene editing-based therapeutics in specific disease areas

Vertex

We have entered into a series of agreements with Vertex that contemplate certain research, development, manufacturing and commercialization activities involving various targets. Since October 2015, we have entered into a Strategic Collaboration, Option and License Agreement, as amended in 2017 and 2019, or the 2015 Collaboration Agreement; a Joint Development and
Commercialization Agreement, or JDA; and a Strategic Collaboration and License Agreement, or the 2019 Collaboration Agreement.

2015 Collaboration Agreement

Pursuant to the 2015 Collaboration Agreement, we agreed to provide technology and options to obtain licenses relating to our CRISPR/Cas technology to Vertex in exchange for a $75.0 million upfront payment. In 2015, in connection with the initial entry into the 2015 Collaboration Agreement, Vertex also made a $30.0 million equity investment in us.

The initial focus of the 2015 Vertex collaboration was to use CRISPR/Cas9 technology to discover and develop gene-based treatments for hemoglobinopathies and cystic fibrosis. In 2017, Vertex exercised its option to co-develop and co-commercialize the hemoglobinopathies program for which net profits and losses, as applicable, will be shared equally by the parties. Matters relating to hemoglobinopathies targets are governed by the JDA, as summarized below. Further discovery efforts focused on a specified number of other genetic targets. Under the 2015 Collaboration Agreement, Vertex had the option to exclusively license treatments for a specified number of collaboration targets that emerged from the four-year research collaboration under certain of our platform and background intellectual property to develop, manufacture, commercialize, sell and use therapeutics directed to each such collaboration target. We were responsible for discovery activities, and the related expenses were fully funded by Vertex.

22

In October 2019, Vertex exercised the remaining options granted to it under the 2015 Collaboration Agreement to exclusively in-license three additional targets for the development of gene-based treatments using CRISPR-based gene editing. The targets include the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene and two undisclosed targets. Under the terms of the 2015 Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $30.0 million in connection with the option exercise and have the potential to receive up to $410.0 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones, as well as royalty payments in the single digits to low teens on net product sales for each of the three targets. The milestone and royalty payments are each subject to reduction under certain specified conditions set forth in the 2015 Collaboration Agreement. For these targets, Vertex is solely responsible for all research, development, manufacturing and global commercialization activities and Vertex received exclusive rights to develop and commercialize products related to these targets globally. The research term of the 2015 Collaboration Agreement has expired, and Vertex no longer holds rights to in-license additional targets under the 2015 Collaboration Agreement.

Either party can terminate the 2015 Collaboration Agreement upon the other party’s material breach, subject to specified notice and cure provisions. Vertex also has the right to terminate the 2015 Collaboration Agreement for convenience at any time upon 90 days’ written notice prior to any product receiving marketing approval and upon 270 days’ notice after a product has received marketing approval. We may also terminate the 2015 Collaboration Agreement in the event Vertex challenges any of our patent rights.

Absent early termination, the 2015 Collaboration Agreement will continue until the expiration of the Vertex’s payment obligations under the 2015 Collaboration Agreement.

Joint Development Agreement

In December 2017, we entered into the JDA with Vertex. The initial focus of the JDA is for the development of CTX001 for TDT and SCD. In connection with entering into the JDA, we received a $7.0 million up-front payment from Vertex and subsequently received a one-time low seven-digit milestone payment upon the dosing of the second patient in a clinical trial with the initial product candidate. The net profits and net losses, as applicable, incurred under the JDA will be shared equally between us and Vertex.

The JDA includes, among other things, provisions relating to the following:

Governance. We and Vertex will form the following committees: (i) a joint steering committee to provide high-level oversight and decision making regarding the activities covered by the JDA, (ii) a joint development committee to provide oversight and decision making-making regarding development activities, (iii) a joint commercialization committee to provide oversight and decision-making regarding commercialization activities and (iv) a joint manufacturing committee to provide oversight and decision-making regarding manufacturing activities. Each of the committees will contain an equal number of representatives from each of us and Vertex.

Commercialization. The JDA provides that we will be the responsible for commercialization activities in the United States and Vertex will be responsible for commercialization activities outside of the United States.

Termination. Either party can terminate the JDA upon the other party’s material breach, subject to specified notice and cure provisions, or, in the case of Vertex, in the event that we become subject to specified bankruptcy, winding up or similar circumstances. Either party may terminate the JDA in the event the other party commences or participates in any action or proceeding challenging the validity or enforceability of any patent that is licensed to such challenging party pursuant to the JDA. Vertex also has the right to terminate the JDA for convenience at any time after giving prior written notice.

If circumstances arise pursuant to which a party would have the right to terminate the JDA on account of an uncured material breach, such party may elect to keep the JDA in effect and cause such breaching party to be treated as if it had exercised its opt-out rights with respect to the products associated with such uncured material breach (described below) and the royalties payable to the breaching party would be reduced by a specified percentage.

Opt-Out Rights. Either party may opt of out of the development of a product candidate under the JDA after predetermined points in the development of the product candidate, on a candidate-by-candidate basis. In the event of such opt-out, the party opting-out will no longer share in the net profits and net losses associated with such product candidate and, instead, the opting out party will be entitled to high single to mid- teen percentage royalties on the net sales of such product, if commercialized.

2019 Collaboration Agreement

On June 6, 2019, we and Vertex entered the 2019 Collaboration Agreement, pursuant to which we and Vertex agreed to collaborate to develop and commercialize products for the treatment of DMD and DM1.

The 2019 Collaboration Agreement includes, among other things, provisions relating to the following:

23

Governance. We and Vertex will form a joint advisory committee to provide high-level oversight and coordination of the activities covered by the 2019 Collaboration Agreement.

Development and Commercialization. The 2019 Collaboration Agreement provides that Vertex will be responsible for development and commercialization activities, subject to our option, exercisable during a specified exercise period, to co-develop and co-commercialize products for the treatment of DM1.

Financial Terms. In connection with entering into the 2019 Collaboration Agreement, we received a $175.0 million up-front payment from Vertex. We are eligible to receive milestone payments from Vertex of up to $825.0 million in the aggregate, depending on the numbers and types of products that achieve pre-determined development and commercial milestones. We are also eligible to receive royalties on the sales of products ranging from the low single digits to the low double digits.

Co-Development and Co-Commercialization Option. If we elect to co-develop and co-commercialize products for the treatment of DM1, we would reimburse Vertex for fifty percent (50%) of the DM1 research and development costs incurred by Vertex and would be responsible for fifty percent (50%) of such costs going forward. We would receive, in lieu of further milestone or royalty payments associated with DM1 development and commercialization activities, fifty percent (50%) of all profits from sales of such products and would be responsible for fifty percent (50%) of all losses.

Termination. Either party may terminate the 2019 Collaboration Agreement upon the other party’s material breach, subject to specified notice and cure provisions. We may also terminate the 2019 Collaboration Agreement in the event Vertex commences or participates in any action or proceeding challenging the validity or enforceability of any patent that is licensed to Vertex pursuant to the 2019 Collaboration Agreement. Vertex may also terminate the 2019 Collaboration Agreement upon our bankruptcy or insolvency, or for convenience at any time, after giving written notice.

If circumstances arise pursuant to which Vertex would have the right to terminate the 2019 Collaboration Agreement on account of an uncured material breach, Vertex may elect to keep the 2019 Collaboration Agreement in effect and reduce by a specified percentage the applicable royalties payable in respect of the product(s) that are the subject of the breach.

Bayer

In December 2015, we and Bayer entered into a joint venture agreement, or the Joint Venture Agreement, pursuant to which we and Bayer established Casebia to discover, develop and commercialize CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing therapeutics to treat the genetic causes of bleeding disorders, autoimmune disease, blindness, hearing loss and heart disease. Under the Joint Venture Agreement, Bayer made available its protein engineering expertise and relevant disease know-how and we made available our proprietary CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology and intellectual property. We and Bayer each held a 50% partnership interest in Casebia.

In December 2019, we, Bayer, certain subsidiaries and affiliates of us and Bayer, and Casebia entered into a series of transactions by which, among other things, Casebia became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours; we and Bayer terminated the joint venture; and we and Bayer entered into a new option agreement, or the 2019 Option Agreement.

Retirement Agreement

On December 13, 2019, we, Bayer and Casebia entered into an agreement, or the Retirement Agreement, pursuant to which Casebia retired Bayer’s outstanding partnership interests in exchange for up to $22.0 million returned from Casebia operating cash less certain estimated interim operating expenses, subject to potential post-closing adjustments, or the Retirement.

In connection with the Retirement, our wholly-owned subsidiary simultaneously acquired a 1% partnership interest in Casebia in exchange for a capital contribution in an amount equal to 1% of the fair market value of Casebia. Accordingly, after effecting the Retirement, we and our wholly-owned subsidiary own 100% of the partnership interests in Casebia. The completion of the Retirement occurred simultaneously with the signing of the Retirement Agreement.  

The Retirement Agreement contains customary representations and warranties and other customary terms for a transaction of this type.  

In connection with the Retirement, the parties also entered into certain other ancillary agreements, including a joint venture termination agreement and option agreement, each summarized below.

24

Joint Venture Termination Agreement

In connection with entering into the Retirement Agreement, we, Bayer, certain subsidiaries and affiliates of us and Bayer, and Casebia entered into an agreement, or the Joint Venture Termination Agreement, pursuant to which we and Bayer agreed to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement consistent with the terms of such agreement.

Under the Joint Venture Termination Agreement, Casebia-owned patents, know-how and technology are now co-owned by us and Bayer, subject to certain exclusive licenses granted therein. In addition, the parties modified their rights and obligations under an amended and restated intellectual property management agreement and terminated other agreements between the parties related to the joint venture, including the CRISPR IP Contribution Agreement with Casebia, dated as of March 16, 2016, pursuant to which we and certain of our affiliated entities granted Casebia an exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license, including the right to sublicense, to the use of our CRISPR/Cas technology to research, develop, produce, commercialize and sell products in certain fields and the existing Option Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2016, by and between us, Bayer and Casebia.

2019 Option Agreement

In connection with entering into the Retirement Agreement and the Joint Venture Termination Agreement, we and Bayer also entered into the 2019 Option Agreement pursuant to which Bayer obtained an option (exercisable during a specified exercise period defined by future events, but in no event longer than five years after the effective date of the 2019 Option Agreement) to co-develop and co-commercialize two products for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of certain autoimmune disorders, eye disorders, or hemophilia A disorders. In the event Bayer elects to co-develop and co-commercialize a product, the parties will negotiate and enter into a co-development and co-commercialization agreement, or a Co-Commercialization Agreement, for such product, and Bayer would be responsible for 50% of the research and development costs incurred by us for such product going forward. Bayer would receive 50% of all profits from sales of such product and would be responsible for 50% of all losses.

If Bayer elects to exercise its option to co-develop and co-commercialize a product, Bayer will make a one-time $20.0 million payment, or the Option Payment, to us that will become non-refundable once the parties execute a Co-Commercialization Agreement with respect to such optioned product. The Option Payment is payable only once with respect to the first time Bayer exercises an option under the 2019 Option Agreement.

In addition, following Bayer’s exercise of its option and/or the execution of a Co-Commercialization Agreement for an optioned product, for a period beginning on the effective date of such Co-Commercialization Agreement and ending on the earlier of the three-month anniversary of such effective date or during the 90-day negotiation process of such Co-Commercialization Agreement, Bayer has a right to negotiate an exclusive license to develop and commercialize such optioned product. If Bayer exercises such right, the parties will enter into an exclusive license agreement for such optioned product on terms mutually agreeable to the parties. Further, the Option Payment paid for such optioned product would become credited against payments due under such exclusive license or any other exclusive license entered into in connection with the 2019 Option Agreement.

Either party may terminate the 2019 Option Agreement upon the other party’s material breach, subject to specified notice and cure provisions. We may also terminate the 2019 Option Agreement in the event Bayer commences or participates in any action or proceeding challenging the validity or enforceability of any CRISPR patent necessary or useful for the research, development, manufacture or commercialization of a product that is the subject of the 2019 Option Agreement. Bayer may also terminate the 2019 Option Agreement upon our bankruptcy or insolvency, or for convenience at any time, after giving written notice.

ViaCyte

In September 2018, we and ViaCyte entered into a research collaboration agreement, or the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement. Pursuant to the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement, we and ViaCyte established a research plan, or the Research Plan, for the purpose of designing and advancing allogeneic cell therapies derived from gene edited human stem cells for use in the treatment of diabetes type 1, diabetes type 2 and insulin dependent diabetes, or the Field.

For purposes of carrying out the parties’ respective activities under the Research Plan, each party granted the other party a non-exclusive, royalty free, fully-paid, worldwide license to perform those activities during the research term. In addition, each party also granted the other party a non-exclusive license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize products and product candidates for use in the Field, which is exercisable only upon the occurrence of certain termination events.

We and ViaCyte have formed a Joint Research Committee, or the JRC, comprised of three representatives from each of us and ViaCyte to review the progress of the research activities. All decisions by the JRC are made by consensus subject to specified dispute resolutions procedures. Each party to the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement will be responsible for the costs incurred in connection

25

with their respective activities set forth in the Research Plan. During the Research Term, neither party nor any of its affiliates may, alone or in conjunction with a third party, conduct discovery, research, development, manufacturing or commercialization activities with respect to any product which employs allogeneic cell therapy derived from gene-edited human stem cell for use in the Field.

Pursuant to the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement, in 2018 we issued an aggregate of 380,148 shares and paid an aggregate of $1.2 million to ViaCyte in satisfaction of our upfront payment obligations. Refer to Note 9 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.

Either party may terminate the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement for convenience or uncured material breach, upon notice of a specified period. Either party may also terminate the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement upon notice if the other challenges the enforceability, validity or scope of any patent rights belonging to the other party, unless the challenging party withdraws or causes the challenge to be withdrawn within a specified period. The ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement also may be terminated by either party upon the insolvency of the other party. In the event either party is acquired by specified third parties the ViaCyte Collaboration Agreement may be terminated, at the election of the non-acquired party, upon the closing of such acquisition.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, know-how and improvements that we believe are commercially important to our business by seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, that cover our gene-editing technology, existing and planned therapeutic programs. We also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary technologies and know-how to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, as well as continuing technological innovation and seeking in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of gene editing. We additionally rely on trademark protection, copyright protection and regulatory protection available via orphan drug designations, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions. Our success will depend significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, our ability to defend and enforce our intellectual property rights and our ability to operate without infringing any valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also protect the integrity and confidentiality of our data, know-how and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information systems.

In-Licensed Intellectual Property from Dr. Charpentier

In April 2014, pursuant to an exclusive license with Dr. Charpentier, we licensed certain rights to a worldwide patent portfolio which covers various aspects of our genome editing platform technology including, for example, compositions of matter, including additional CRISPR/TRACR/Cas9 complexes, and methods of use, including their use in targeting or cutting DNA. We refer to this worldwide patent portfolio as the “Patent Portfolio”. This Patent Portfolio to-date includes, for example, more than fifty (50) granted or allowed patents in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Europe, Japan, China, Ukraine, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Mexico, Tunisia, Hong Kong, Israel, Peru, the Philippines, and South Africa and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Canada, Mexico, Australia and other selected countries in Central America, South America, Asia and Africa. This license is limited to therapeutic products such as pharmaceuticals and biologics and any associated companion diagnostics, for the treatment or prevention of human diseases, disorders, or conditions. For further information about this license, please see “Business – CRISPR License with Dr. Charpentier.”

In addition to Dr. Charpentier, the Patent Portfolio has named inventors who assigned their rights either to the Regents of the University of California, or California, or the University of Vienna, or Vienna. California’s rights are subject to certain overriding obligations to the sponsors of its research, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the U.S. Government. Caribou Biosciences, or Caribou, had reported that it had an exclusive license to patent rights from California and Vienna, subject to a retained right to allow non-profit entities to use the inventions for research and educational purposes. Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., or Intellia Therapeutics, had reported that it had an exclusive license to such rights from Caribou in certain fields. We refer collectively to Dr. Charpentier, California, and Vienna as the “CVC Group”. We are subject to quasi-litigation, inter partes administrative proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and the European Patent Office involving the Patent Portfolio. For further information regarding risks regarding these proceedings, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

On December 15, 2016, we entered into a Consent to Assignments, Licensing and Common Ownership and Invention Management Agreement, or the IMA, with California, Vienna, Dr. Charpentier, Intellia Therapeutics, Caribou, ERS Genomics Ltd., or ERS, and our wholly-owned subsidiary TRACR Hematology Ltd., or TRACR. Under the IMA, California and Vienna retroactively consent to Dr. Charpentier’s licensing of her rights to the CRISPR/Cas9 intellectual property, pursuant to our license with Dr. Charpentier, to us, TRACR, and ERS, in the United States and globally. The IMA also provides retroactive consent of co-owners to sublicenses granted by us, TRACR and other licensees, prospective consent to sublicenses they may grant in future, retroactive

26

approval of prior assignments by certain parties, and provides for, among other things, (i) good faith cooperation among the parties regarding patent maintenance, defense and prosecution, (ii) cost-sharing arrangements, and (iii) notice of and coordination in the event of third-party infringement of the subject patents and with respect to certain adverse claimants of the CRISPR/Cas9 intellectual property. Unless earlier terminated by the parties, the IMA will continue in effect until the later of the last expiration date of the patents underlying the gene-editing technology, or the date on which the last underlying patent application is abandoned. For further information regarding the effects of joint ownership in the United States and in other jurisdictions worldwide, please see “Risk Factors – The Intellectual Property That Protects Our Core Gene-Editing Technology Is Jointly Owned, And Our License Is From Only One Of The Joint Owners, Materially Limiting Our Rights In The United States And In Other Jurisdictions.”  

CRISPR-Owned Intellectual Property

In addition to the Patent Portfolio, we have a broad intellectual property estate that includes numerous patent families covering key aspects of our CRISPR/Cas9 technologies and development programs which is intended to provide multiple layers of protection.  These patent families encompass filings covering our development programs (such as composition of matter, method of use, manufacturing processes, dosing and formulations), the use and improvement modifications of CRISPR/Cas9 systems for gene editing (such as improvements to component systems including nucleases and single or modified guide RNAs), technologies for delivering protein/nucleic acid complexes and RNA into cells (such as improved viral vector systems and self‑inactivating systems), and technology relevant to stem cell-based therapies. 

Overall, our intellectual property estate includes over 40 active patent families and over 50 granted or allowed patents in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, Japan, China, Ukraine, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Mexico, Tunisia, Hong Kong, Israel and South Africa, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico and other selected countries in Central America, South America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. The granted patents and any other patents that may ultimately issue from these patent families are expected to expire starting in 2033, not including any applicable patent term extensions.

Our U.S. trademark estate consists of seven pending applications, including for CTX001, CTX101, CTX110, CTX120, CTX130, and CRISPR TX, as well as five U.S. registrations, including for CRISPR THERAPEUTICS and the CRISPR THERAPEUTICS logo. Our international trademark estate includes 3 pending applications for CRISPR THERAPEUTICS in Germany, Spain and Italy and 2 registrations in U.K. and Benelux, and 5 registrations for CRISPR THERAPEUTICS & DESIGN in Brazil, Benelux and Hong Kong. We also have three International Registrations for CTX001, CTX101 designating the EU, Switzerland, and U.K., and the CRISPR THERAPEUTICS logo designating Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, Vietnam and U.K.

Patent Assignment Agreement

In November 2014, we entered into a patent assignment agreement with Dr. Charpentier, Dr. Ines Fonfara and Vienna, or the Patent Assignment Agreement. Under the Patent Assignment Agreement, Dr. Charpentier, Dr. Fonfara and Vienna assigned to us all rights to a family of patent applications relating to certain compositions of matter, including additional CRISPR/TRACR/Cas9 complexes, and methods of use, including their use in targeting or cutting DNA.

As consideration for the patent rights assigned to us, we agreed to pay an upfront payment, milestone payments beginning with the filing of a U.S. Investigational New Drug application or its equivalent in another country, a minimum annual royalty, a low single-digit royalty on net sales of products whose manufacture, use, sale, or importation is covered by the assigned patent rights, and a low single-digit percentage of licensing revenues.

We are obliged to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval to market a product whose manufacture, use, sale, or importation is covered by the assigned patent rights, including but not limited to an obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to file a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (or its equivalent in a major market country) by November 2021.

27

License Agreements

CRISPR License With Dr. Charpentier

In April 2014, we entered into a license agreement, or the Charpentier License Agreement, with Dr. Charpentier, one of our co-founders, pursuant to which we received an exclusive license under Dr. Charpentier’s joint ownership interest in the Patent Portfolio, to research, develop and commercialize therapeutic products such as pharmaceuticals or biological preparations, and any associated companion diagnostics, for the treatment or prevention of human diseases, disorders, or conditions, other than hemoglobinopathies, which we refer to as the CRISPR Field. The license is exclusive, even as to Dr. Charpentier, except that she retains a non-transferable right to use the technology for her own research purposes and in research collaborations with academic and non-profit partners. The exclusive license is granted only under Dr. Charpentier’s interest in the patent applications and the exclusivity is not granted under any other joint owner’s interest. Additionally, the Charpentier License Agreement granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicense, including the right to sublicense, to research, develop, produce, commercialize and sell therapeutic products relating to the CRISPR Field which incorporate any intellectual property that TRACR develops under its license with Dr. Charpentier. In turn, we granted to Dr. Charpentier an exclusive license with the obligation to sublicense to TRACR any intellectual property we develop under the license with Dr. Charpentier for treatment and prevention of hemoglobinopathies in humans, including, without limitation, sickle cell disease and thalassemia.

Under the terms of the Charpentier License Agreement, as consideration for the license, Dr. Charpentier received a technology transfer fee, an immaterial annual maintenance fee, immaterial milestone payments that will be due after the initiation of clinical trials, a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales of licensed products, and a low single digit percentage royalties of sublicensing revenue. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval to market a licensed therapeutic product. CRISPR must use commercially reasonable efforts to file a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (or its equivalent in a major market country for a therapeutic product in the CRISPR field) by April 2021. In addition, CRISPR must use commercially reasonable efforts to file a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (or its equivalent in a major market country) for a therapeutic product in the CRISPR field by April 2024.

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Charpentier License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Patent Portfolio in such country. We have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon 60 days’ written notice to Dr. Charpentier. We and Dr. Charpentier may terminate the agreement upon 90 days’ notice in the event of a material breach by the other party, which is not cured during the 90-day notice period. Dr. Charpentier may terminate the license agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Patent Portfolio.

TRACR License With Dr. Charpentier

In April 2014, concurrently with our license agreement with Dr. Charpentier, TRACR entered into a license agreement, or the TRACR License Agreement, with Dr. Charpentier, a minority shareholder of TRACR, under the Patent Portfolio. Pursuant to the TRACR License Agreement, TRACR was granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, including the right to sublicense, to research, develop, produce, commercialize and sell therapeutic and diagnostic products for the treatment and prevention of hemoglobinopathies in humans, including sickle cell disease and thalassemia, or the TRACR Field. TRACR also received a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, including the right to sublicense, to carry out internal pharmaceutical research for therapeutic products outside of the TRACR Field and an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicense, including the right to sublicense, to research, develop, produce, commercialize and sell therapeutic products relating to the TRACR Field which incorporate any intellectual property that CRISPR develops under its license with Dr. Charpentier. In turn, TRACR granted to Dr. Charpentier an exclusive license to sublicense to CRISPR any intellectual property that TRACR develops under the license with Dr. Charpentier for use in the CRISPR Field.

TRACR is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize at least one therapeutic product for the prevention or treatment of human disease under the license agreement. TRACR must use commercially reasonable efforts to file a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (or its equivalent in a major market country) for a therapeutic product in the TRACR field by April 2021. In addition, TRACR must use commercially reasonable efforts to file a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (or its equivalent in a major market country) for a therapeutic product in the TRACR field by April 2024. TRACR is solely responsible for all clinical, regulatory and development costs.

Under the TRACR License Agreement, Dr. Charpentier is entitled to receive immaterial clinical and regulatory milestone payments per product that TRACR commercializes. TRACR is also required to pay Dr. Charpentier low single digit percentage royalties on the net sales of any approved therapeutic or diagnostic products, made by it, its affiliates, or its sublicensees and low single-digit percentage royalties on sublicensing revenue.

28

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the license agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Patent Portfolio in such country. TRACR has the right to terminate the agreement at will upon 60 days’ written notice to Dr. Charpentier. TRACR and Dr. Charpentier may terminate the agreement upon 90 days’ notice in the event of a material breach by the other party, which is not cured during the 90-day notice period. Dr. Charpentier may terminate the license agreement immediately if TRACR challenges the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Patent Right.

Enabling Technologies

We have entered into a number of additional collaborations and license agreements in support of our ex vivo and in vivo programs, including agreements related to: technologies to deliver CRISPR/Cas9 ex vivo and in vivo; additions to our hematopoietic stem cell and in vivo programs, including a grant to advance gene-editing therapies for HIV; and enhancements to our immuno-oncology and regenerative medicine cell therapy programs and platform. For example, we have entered into agreements, including with MaxCyte Incorporated on ex vivo delivery for our hemoglobinopathy and immuno-oncology programs, ProBioGen AG on the development of novel in vivo delivery modalities, KSQ Therapeutics Incorporated on intellectual property for our allogeneic immuno-oncology programs and University Health Network on regenerative medicine cell therapies for a number of different diseases.

Manufacturing

We have entered into certain manufacturing and supply arrangements with third-party suppliers to support production of our product candidates and their components. We plan to continue to rely on qualified third-party organizations to produce or process bulk compounds, formulated compounds, viral vectors or engineered cells for IND-supporting activities and early stage clinical trials. We expect that commercial quantities of any compound, vector, or engineered cells that we may seek to develop will be manufactured in facilities and by processes that comply with FDA and other regulations. At the appropriate time in the product development process, we will determine whether to establish manufacturing facilities or continue to rely on third parties to manufacture commercial quantities of any products that we may successfully develop. In the second quarter of 2020, we announced that we are building a cell therapy manufacturing facility for clinical and commercial production of our investigational cell therapy product candidates in Framingham, Massachusetts. This facility is not yet operational and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to build out our internal manufacturing capacity. Outside of the United States and Europe, where appropriate, we may elect in the future to utilize strategic partners, distributors or contract sales forces to assist in the commercialization of our products. In certain instances, we may consider building our own commercial infrastructure.

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

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene editing, gene therapy and cell therapy fields, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we currently face, and will continue to face, substantial competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies; academic institutions and governmental agencies; and public and private research institutions, some or all of which may have greater access to capital or resources than we do. For any products that we may ultimately commercialize, not only will we compete with any existing therapies and those therapies currently in development, we will have to compete with new therapies that may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that utilize technologies encompassing genomic medicines to create therapies, including gene editing, gene therapy and cell therapy. In addition, we compete with companies working to develop therapies in areas related to our specific research and development programs.

Our platform and product focus is on the development of therapies using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. We are aware of several companies focused on developing therapies in various indications using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology, including Intellia Therapeutics and Editas Medicine. In addition, several academic groups have developed new gene-editing technologies based on CRISPR/Cas9, such as base editing and prime editing, that may have utility in therapeutic development. Companies seeking to develop therapies based on these technologies include Beam Therapeutics and Prime Medicine.

29

There are also companies developing therapies using additional gene-editing technologies, such as TALENs, meganucleases and ZFNs. These companies include Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, Precision BioSciences and Sangamo Therapeutics.

We are also aware of companies developing therapies in various areas related to our specific research and development programs. In hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Acceleron Pharma, Aruvant Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Editas Medicine, Global Blood Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Sangamo Therapeutics. In immuno-oncology, these companies include Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectis, Fate Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Poseida Therapeutics and Precision BioSciences. In regenerative medicine, these companies include BlueRock Therapeutics (acquired by Bayer in 2019), Sana Biotechnology and Semma Therapeutics (acquired by Vertex in 2019). In in vivo, these companies include Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, Ultragenyx and Verve Therapeutics.

Gene editing is a highly active field of research and new technologies, related or unrelated to CRISPR, may be discovered and create new competition. These new technologies could have advantages over CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in some applications and there can be no certainty that other gene-editing technologies will not be considered better or more attractive than our technology for the development of products. For example, Editas has exclusively licensed a CRISPR system involving a different CRISPR-associated nuclease, Cas12a (Cpf1), which can also edit human DNA, as well as advanced forms of Cas9. Editas and certain of its scientific founders have asserted that Cas12a may work better than Cas9 in some cases. Cas9 may be determined to be less attractive than Cas12a or other CRISPR proteins that have yet to be discovered. Multiple academic labs and companies have also published on other CRISPR-associated nuclease variants that can edit human DNA.

In addition to competition from other gene-editing therapies or gene or cell therapies, any product we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody or protein therapies. In addition, new scientific discoveries may cause CRISPR/Cas9 technology, or gene editing as a whole, to be considered an inferior form of therapy.

In addition, many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, have broader acceptance and higher rates of reimbursement by third-party payors or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, and availability of reimbursement.

If our current programs are approved for the indications for which we are currently planning clinical trials, they may compete with other products currently under development, including gene editing, gene therapy, and cell therapy products. Competition with other related products currently under development may include competition for clinical trial sites, patient recruitment, and product sales. In addition, due to the intense research and development taking place in the gene-editing field, including by us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and highly competitive. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future. For example, see our discussion of the ‘048 interference, the ‘115 interference and European opposition proceedings in “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Intellectual Property - Third-party Claims Of Intellectual Property Infringement Against Us, Our Licensors Or Our Collaborators May Prevent Or Delay Our Product Discovery and Development Efforts.”

30

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. Some jurisdictions outside of the United States also regulate the pricing of such products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in other 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.

Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States

In the United States, our product candidates are regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and their implementing regulations. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including nonclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical testing, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, adverse publicity, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Preclinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, including a gene therapy product candidate, the 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 animals. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. 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

31

becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA imposes a clinical hold based on concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects would be exposed to unreasonable and significant health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or not allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the conduct of the IND study, including safety concerns or concerns due to non-compliance, it may impose a partial or complete clinical hold. 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 or recommence but only under terms authorized by the FDA. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical studies in a timely manner.

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 subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a non-U.S. clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from a well-designed and well-conducted clinical trial to the FDA in support of the BLA so long as the clinical trial is conducted in compliance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems it necessary.

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, subject informed consent, ethical factors, and the safety of human subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate 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. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group may recommend continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study. Finally, research activities involving infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, recombinant DNA, and genetically altered organisms and agents may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution established under the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. The IBC assess the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.

32

Progress reports detailing the results, if known, of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators within 15 calendar days of receipt by the sponsor or its agents after determining that the information qualifies for such expedited reporting. IND safety reports are required for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Additionally, a sponsor must notify FDA within 7 calendar days after receiving information concerning any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction.

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. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. 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. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Special Regulations and Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products

The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material or by specifically altering host (human) genetic sequences. Examples of gene therapy products include nucleic acids (e.g., plasmids, in vitro transcribed ribonucleic acid), genetically modified microorganisms (e.g., viruses, bacteria, fungi), engineered site specific nucleases used for human genome editing and ex vivo genetically modified human cells. The products may be used to modify cells in vivo or transferred to cells ex vivo prior to administration to the recipient. Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates gene therapy products. Within the CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols.

Although the FDA has indicated that its guidance documents regarding gene therapies are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any product candidate we may develop. The guidance documents provide additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events. Depending on the product type, long term follow up can be up to 15 years or as little as five years.

Previously, if a gene therapy trial was conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, a protocol and related documentation were required to be submitted to, and the study registered with, the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines prior to the submission of an IND to the FDA. In addition, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily followed them. The NIH would convene the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or RAC, a federal advisory committee, to discuss protocols that raised novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA notified the FDA of the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a gene therapy protocol. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA web site and may be accessed by the public. In August 2018, the NIH published a notice in the Federal Register to seek public comment on its proposal to amend the NIH Guidelines to streamline oversight for human gene transfer clinical research protocols and reduce duplicative reporting requirements while focusing the NIH Guidelines more specifically on biosafety issues associated with research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. The notice included proposed amendments to eliminate RAC review and reporting requirements to NIH for human gene transfer research protocols and to modify the roles and responsibilities of investigators, institutions, IBCs, the RAC, and the NIH to be consistent with these goals. During the comment period and effective August 2018, the NIH stated it will no longer accept new human gene transfer protocols for the protocol registration process under the NIH Guidelines, or convene the RAC to review individual human gene transfer protocols. The NIH Office of Science Policy also will not accept annual reports, safety reports, amendments or other documentation for any previously registered human gene transfer protocols under the NIH Guidelines. In April 2019, NIH announced the updated guidelines, which reflect these proposed changes, and clarified that these trials will remain subject to the FDA’s oversight and other clinical trial regulations, and oversight at the local level will continue as set forth in the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. Only after FDA, IBC and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed.

33

Compliance with cGMP and CGTP Requirements

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.

For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with CGTP. These requirements are found in FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the CGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies for products intended for the U.S. market, and with analogous health regulatory agencies for products intended for other markets globally. Both U.S. and non-U.S. manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA and/or other health regulatory agencies upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether U.S. or non-U.S., is deemed misbranded under the FDCA, and could be affected by similar as well as additional compliance issues in other jurisdictions. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA or other governing health regulatory agency may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.

Review and Approval of a BLA

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting a license to market the 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.

The FDA has 60 days after submission of the application to conduct an initial review to determine whether it is sufficient to accept for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or the PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority review of the application. 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. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the applicant otherwise provides through the submission of a major amendment additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Under the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure, and potent and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure, and potent.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of nonclinical study and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GLPs and GCPs, respectively, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a complete response letter may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or Class 2. The classification of a resubmission is based on the information submitted by an applicant in response to an action letter. 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. Alternatively, sponsors that receive a complete response letter may either withdraw the application or request a hearing.

34

The FDA may also refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. 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.

If the FDA approves a new product, it 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. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s safety after approval. 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, specific or special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, certain manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review and Regenerative Advanced Therapy Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and regenerative advanced therapy designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process, or if the designated drug development program is no longer being pursued.

Second, FDA has a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it 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 product 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.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting adverse reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Finally, the FDA can accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. 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 has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with FDA

35

to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

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. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally could support accelerated approval where a study demonstrates a relatively short-term clinical benefit in a chronic disease setting in which assessing durability of the clinical benefit is essential for traditional approval, but the short-term benefit is considered reasonably likely to predict long-term benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

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 has 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 cGMP 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 cGMP 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.

36

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements 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. Other potential consequences of a failure to comply with regulatory requirements include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of licensed and approved 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. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Orphan Drug Designation

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for rare diseases or conditions. 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, or OOPD, at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process for commercial distribution 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.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. The FDA cannot, however, approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (PREA), as amended, a BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

37

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation; however, they will apply to a BLA for a new active ingredient that is orphan-designated if the biologic is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. 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 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

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.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of 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 products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new biologic product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a marketing application, plus the time between the submission date of the marketing application and the ultimate approval date, less any time the applicant failed to act with due diligence. 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 USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Regulation And Procedures Governing Approval Of Medicinal Products In Europe

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable health regulatory authorities before it can commence

38

clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in Europe generally follows the same lines as in the United States, although the approval of a medicinal product in the United States is no guarantee of approval of the same product in Europe, either at all or within the same timescale as approval may be granted in the United States. The process 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 EMA, or the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by the EMA or these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in Europe.

Clinical Trial Approval

Pursuant to the currently applicable Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU has been implemented through national legislation of the EU Member States. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the national competent authority, or NCA, of an EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted, or in multiple Member States if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of Member States. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the ethics committee, or EC, has issued a favorable opinion in relation to the clinical trial. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and corresponding national laws of the relevant EU Member States, and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the new legislation, which will be directly applicable in all EU Member States (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 will come into effect following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the new Clinical Trials Regulation, through an independent audit, which is currently expected to occur in December 2021.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product in the EEA (comprising the EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), an applicant must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EEA Member States(decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the EEA. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EEA, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EEA 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 medicinal products, or ATMPs, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer, HIV or AIDS, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For those products for which the use of the centralized procedure is not mandatory, applicants may elect to use the centralized procedure where either the product contains a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases, or where the applicant can show that the product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients at an EU level.

Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the EEA for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, at EMA, which conducts a scientific assessment of the MAA and provides an opinion regarding the MAA for an ATMP. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.

39

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP, established at the EMA is responsible for issuing a final opinion on whether an ATMP meets the required quality, safety and efficacy requirements, and whether a product has a positive benefit/risk profile. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion, together with supporting documentation, to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization. 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 frame of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

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

PRIME scheme

The EMA now offers a scheme to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist, by, amongst other things, offeringearly dialogue with, and regulatory support from, the EMA. The scheme is intended to stimulate innovation, optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of PRIority Medicines, or PRIME, by building upon the scientific advice scheme and accelerated assessment procedure offered by EMA. The scheme is voluntary and eligibility criteria must be met for a medicine to qualify for PRIME.

The PRIME scheme is open to medicines under development and for which the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (meaning there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EEA or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods or therapy or improving existing ones. Applicants will typically be at the exploratory clinical trial phase of development, and will have preliminary clinical evidence in patients to demonstrate the promising activity of the medicine and its potential to address, to a significant extent, an unmet medical need. In exceptional cases, applicants from the academic sector or SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) may submit an eligibility request at an earlier stage of development if compelling non-clinical data in a relevant model provide early evidence of promising activity, and first in man studies indicate adequate exposure for the desired pharmacotherapeutic effects and tolerability.

If a medicine is selected for the PRIME scheme, the EMA:

Medicines that are selected for the PRIME scheme are also expected to benefit from EMA’s accelerated assessment procedure at the time of application for marketing authorization. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

Regulatory Data Protection in the EEA

In the EEA, innovate medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon grant of a marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation

40

(EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. 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 an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an MAA with a completely independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A centralized 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 nine 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 EEA 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 EU’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 EU, 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 advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs, are strictly regulated in the EU under Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, and the relevant national implementing legislation in the Member States. The advertising of prescription-only medicines to the general public is not permitted in the EU.

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 (i) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EEA when the application is made, or (ii) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EEA would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. For either of these conditions (i) and (ii), the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EEA or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

41

An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the ability to apply for a centralized EEA-wide marketing authorization. The grant of a marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the European Commission nor the Member States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization in respect of 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. There are a few limited of derogations from the ten-year period of market exclusivity pursuant to which the European Commission may grant a marketing authorization for a similar medicinal product in the same therapeutic indication, which are:

For other markets in which we might in the future seek to obtain marketing approval for the commercialization of products, there are other health regulatory regimes for seeking approval, and we would need to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable health regulatory procedures and standards, as well as other governing laws and regulations for each applicable jurisdiction.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the U.K. voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the U.K. formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the U.K. This transition period ended on December 31, 2020. Since the regulatory framework in the U.K. covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of medicinal products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the U.K., as U.K. legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact the regulatory regime in the U.K. in the long-term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the U.K.’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. 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 product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. Even if any product candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such 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 product candidates. Factors a payor considers in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

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

42

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.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such 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 various federal, state and/or local governments, as well as other payors, within the U.S. and in other countries globally, and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in these efforts. Governments and other payors 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 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 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.

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments, or HTAs) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU 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. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU 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 EU have increased the level of discounting required in relation to the pricing of 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 EU. 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 EU 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.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. 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:

43

Some state and other 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 other 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.

44

Additionally, 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. These changes are effective as of January 19, 2021, but some are already subject to legal challenges by industry groups. We are uncertain at this time what effect these changes may have on our business.

Healthcare Reform

A primary trend in the U.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 ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are:

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, 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 2012 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and pursuant to subsequent legislation, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the outbreak of a novel strain of virus named SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), or coronavirus, which causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers, and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

45

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court; the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders that eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

Further, CMS recently finalized regulations that give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. It is unclear what type of impact, if any, efforts such as this will have on our business.

There has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in enacting legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Beyond challenges to the ACA, other legislative measures have also been enacted that may impose additional pricing and product development pressures on our business. For example, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy. We expect that additional foreign, federal and state 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 limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the national level in the U.S. and other jurisdictions globally, as well as at some regional, state and/or local levels within the U.S. or other jurisdictions, directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Additional Regulation

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, 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. Equivalent laws have been adopted in third countries that impose similar obligations.

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, we had 410 full-time employees. No employees were represented by labor unions or subject to collective bargaining agreements. The majority of employees were based in Cambridge, MA with additional employees based in Mission Bay, California, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. 113 employees held Ph.D., Pharm. D., or M.D. degrees. 354 engaged primarily in research and development or technical operations, and 56 engaged in business development, finance, information systems, facilities, human resources, legal functions, or administrative support. We consider our employee relations to be good.

Our human capital resource priorities include attracting, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees. The principal purposes of our competitive equity and cash compensation and benefits programs are to attract, retain, and

46

reward new and existing employees. We consider our human capital resources strategy to be comprehensive, and we foster a strong relationship with and among our employees with ongoing efforts such as employee surveys, training and development programs, and other programs built around our core way of working: collaborative, undaunted, entrepreneurial, and results-oriented. We plan to continue to evolve and add to our suite of human capital resources as we grow.

Information Available on the Internet

Investors and others should note that we announce material information to our investors using our investor relations website (https://crisprtx.gcs-web.com/), SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts. We use these channels as well as social media to communicate with the public about our company, our business, our product candidates and other matters. It is possible that the information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information. Therefore, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the social media channels listed on our investor relations website. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

47

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in this report. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and elsewhere in this report and in any documents incorporated in this report by reference.

You should carefully consider the following risk factors, together with all other information in this report, including our financial statements and notes thereto, and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If any of the following risks, or other risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe to not be significant, develop into actual events, then our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially adversely affected. If that happens, the market price of our common shares could decline, and shareholders may lose all or part of their investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We Have Incurred Significant Operating Losses Since Our Inception And Anticipate That We Will Incur Continued Losses For The Foreseeable Future.

We have funded our operations through public and private offerings of our equity securities, private placements of our preferred shares, convertible loans and collaboration agreements with strategic partners. With the exception of the year ended December 31, 2019 where we generated net income of $66.9 million, we have incurred significant net operating losses each year since our inception, including a loss of $348.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and a loss of $165.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $573.6 million and $224.7 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ deficit and working capital. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing gene-editing product candidates, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. For example, while we were profitable for the year ended December 31, 2019 due to collaboration revenue from Vertex and our gain resulting from the consolidation of Casebia, we did not sustain this profitability for the year ended December 31, 2020 and we do not expect to be profitable in future years.    

48

We Will Need To Raise Substantial Additional Funding, Which Will Dilute Our Shareholders. If We Are Unable To Raise Capital When Needed, We Would Be Forced To Delay, Reduce Or Eliminate Some Of Our Product Development Programs Or Commercialization Efforts.

The development of gene-editing product candidates is capital intensive. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, initiate preclinical studies and clinical trials for and seek marketing approval for our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution are not the responsibility of Bayer, Vertex or other future collaborators. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications or geographies for our product candidates or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2020, and 2019, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of approximately $1,690.3 million and $943.8 million, respectively. With our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities on hand as of December 31, 2020, we expect cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities to be sufficient to fund our current operating plan through at least the next 24 months.

Our future capital requirements will depend on, and could increase significantly as a result of, many factors, including:

49

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. For example, the trading prices for our common shares and other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our shareholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our shareholders and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidate, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We Have A Limited Operating History, Which May Make It Difficult To Evaluate Our Technology And Product Development Capabilities And Predict Our Future Performance.

We were formed in October 2013, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate product revenue or profits, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

We are early in our development efforts and the first clinical trial for any of our product candidates was initiated at the end of 2018. All of our programs require clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, our product candidates must be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other health regulatory agencies, including the EMA, before we may commercialize any product.

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

In addition, as an early stage company, we have encountered unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown circumstances. As we advance our product candidates, we will need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting clinical development and if successful, commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Our Ability To Use Tax Loss Carryforwards In Switzerland May Be Limited.

Under Swiss law, we are entitled to carry forward losses we incur for a period of seven years and we can offset future profits, if any, against such losses. Tax losses are only finally assessed by the tax authorities when offset with taxable profit (which will not be the case if we are loss making). If not used, these tax losses will expire seven years after the year in which they occurred. Due to our limited income, there is a high risk that the tax loss carry forwards will expire partly or entirely and as a result they would not be applied to reduce future cash tax payments. 

As of January 1, 2020, the Canton of Zug introduced its new law on the Swiss corporate tax reform. According to this new law, the ordinary effective corporate income tax rate amount was reduced to 11.91% (federal, cantonal and communal) in 2020 and will potentially be reduced slightly to 11.85% in 2021 (subject to confirmation in a public vote followed by a referendum).

50

Risks Related to Our Business, Technology and Industry

We Are Early In Our Development Efforts. It Will Be Many Years Before We Or Our Collaborators Commercialize A Product Candidate, If Ever. If We Are Unable To Advance Our Product Candidates To Clinical Development, Obtain Regulatory Approval And Ultimately Commercialize Our Product Candidates, Or Experience Significant Delays In Doing So, Our Business Will Be Materially Harmed.

We are early in our development efforts and have focused our research and development efforts to date on CRISPR/Cas9, gene-editing technology, identifying our initial targeted disease indications and our initial product candidates. Our future success depends heavily on the successful development of our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing product candidates. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and preclinical development of our current product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. For example, our research programs, including those subject to our collaboration agreements with Vertex and ViaCyte and option agreement with Bayer, may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons or may fail to successfully advance any product candidates through clinical development. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates, or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products impractical to manufacture, unmarketable, or unlikely to receive marketing approval. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

We must file U.S. investigational new drug applications, or INDs, clinical trial applications, or CTAs, or their equivalents with regulatory authorities to commence clinical trials. The filing of future CTAs or INDs for any other product candidate we develop is subject to the identification and selection of guide RNA with acceptable efficiency. In addition, commencing any of our clinical trials is also subject to acceptance by the European regulatory authorities, or its equivalent, of our CTAs, or the FDA of our INDs, and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the applicable regulatory authorities. In the event that the European regulatory authorities, FDA or their equivalent requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other requests, our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from these regulatory authorities, they could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. Our product candidates will require additional preclinical and clinical development, regulatory and marketing approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, our product development programs must be approved for marketing by the FDA, EMA or certain other health regulatory agencies, before we may commercialize our product candidates.

The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

51

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

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

Our CRISPR/Cas9 Gene-Editing Product Candidates Are Based On A New Gene-Editing Technology, Which Makes It Difficult To Predict The Time And Cost Of Development And Of Subsequently Obtaining Regulatory Approval, If At All. There Have Only Been A Limited Number Of Clinical Trials Of Product Candidates Based On Gene-Editing Technology And No Gene-Editing Products Have Been Approved In The United States Or In The EU.

CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology is relatively new, and no products based on CRISPR/Cas9 or other similar gene-editing technologies have been approved in the United States or the EU and only a limited number of clinical trials of product candidates based on gene-editing technologies have been commenced. As such it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we may incur for our product candidates as they proceed through product discovery or identification, preclinical studies and clinical trials. For example, because we have only very limited data from clinical trials in CTX001 and CTX110, we have not yet been able to fully assess safety in humans. In addition, because we have only recently commenced clinical trials for certain of our other product candidates, we have not yet been able to assess safety in humans. There may be long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop that we cannot predict at this time. Any product candidates we may develop will act at the level of DNA, and, because animal DNA differs from human DNA, testing of our product candidates in animal models may not be predictive of the results we observe in human clinical trials of our product candidates for either safety or efficacy. Also, animal models may not exist for some of the diseases we choose to pursue in our programs. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our gene-editing technology, or any similar or competitive gene-editing technologies, will result in the identification, development, and regulatory approval of any products. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our gene-editing technology or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate or commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. No products based on gene-editing technologies have been approved by regulators. As a result, the regulatory approval process for product candidates such as ours is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or the EU or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

52

The FDA, The NIH And The EMA Have Demonstrated Caution In Their Regulation Of Gene Therapy Treatments, And Ethical And Legal Concerns About Gene Therapy And Genetic Testing May Result In Additional Regulations Or Restrictions On The Development And Commercialization Of Our Product Candidates, Which May Be Difficult To Predict.

The FDA, NIH and the EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

Regulatory requirements in the United States and in other jurisdictions governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. In January 2020, the FDA issued several new guidance documents on gene therapy products. The FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise this review. In addition to the government regulators, the IBC and IRB of each institution at which we conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or a central IRB if appropriate, would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy product candidates conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, the EMA governs the development of gene therapies in the EU and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and committees and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our or our collaborators’ ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

If Any Of The Product Candidates We May Develop Or Administration Process We Rely On Cause Undesirable Side Effects, It Could Delay Or Prevent Their Regulatory Approval, Limit The Commercial Potential Or Result In Significant Negative Consequences Following Any Potential Marketing Approval.

Product candidates we may develop may be associated with undesirable or unacceptable side effects, unexpected characteristics or other serious adverse events, including death, off-target cuts of DNA, or the introduction of cuts in DNA at locations other than the target sequence. These off-target cuts could lead to disruption of a gene or a genetic regulatory sequence at an unintended site in the DNA, or, in those instances where we also provide a segment of DNA to serve as a repair template, it is possible that following off-target cut events, DNA from such repair template could be integrated into the genome at an unintended site, potentially disrupting another important gene or genomic element.

There also is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene-editing therapy due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene-editing products include an immunologic reaction after administration which could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment.

Immunotherapy, and its method of action of harnessing the body’s immune system, is powerful and could lead to serious side effects that we only discover in clinical trials. Unforeseen side effects could arise either during clinical development or, if such side effects are more rare, after our product candidates have been approved by regulatory authorities and the approved product has been marketed, resulting in the exposure of additional patients. If our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology demonstrates a similar effect, we may decide or be required to halt or delay preclinical development or clinical development of our product candidates.

In addition to serious adverse events or side effects caused by any product candidate we may develop, the administration process or related procedures also can cause undesirable side effects. Patients who enroll in our CTX001 clinical trials have their own CRISPR/Cas9 edited-hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, CTX001, infused back into the patient as part of a stem cell transplant, a process which involves, among other things, a patient being treated with myeloablative busulfan conditioning. Patients undergoing stem cell transplants may also encounter side effects (ranging from mild to severe) that are unrelated to the administration of CTX001. Patients who enroll in our immunotherapy trials undergo a lymphodepletion regimen, which generally includes fludarabine and cyclophosphamide that may cause serious adverse events. Because these regimens will cause a transient and sometimes prolonged

53

immune suppression, patients will have an increased risk of certain infections that may be unable to be cleared by the patient and could ultimately lead to death. Any side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We or our collaborators expect to have to educate medical personnel using any product candidates we may develop to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of such product candidates. Inadequate recognition or management of the potential side effects of such product candidates could result in patient injury or death.

If any undesirable or unacceptable side effects, unexpected characteristics or other serious adverse events occur, our clinical trials or commercial distribution of any product candidates or products we develop alone or with collaborators could be suspended or terminated, and our business and reputation could suffer substantial harm.

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

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

Moreover, gene therapy product candidates investigated by other parties have resulted in serious adverse events, including deaths, and it is possible that the FDA or other regulatory authorities could impose a clinical hold on clinical trials of our product candidates after becoming aware of adverse events with products or product candidates in the same class as our product candidates.

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

Our Engineered Allogeneic T cell Product Candidates Represent A Novel Approach To Cancer Treatment That Creates Significant Challenges For Us.

For our immuno-oncology programs, we are developing a pipeline of allogeneic T cell product candidates (which currently includes CTX110, CTX120 and CTX130) that are engineered from healthy donor T cells to express chimeric antigen receptors, or CARs, and are intended for use in any patient with certain cancers. Unlike for autologous CAR-T therapies, for allogeneic CAR-T therapies, we are reliant on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Healthy donor T cells vary in type and quality, and this variation makes producing standardized allogeneic CAR-T product candidates challenging and makes the development and commercialization pathway of those product candidates uncertain.

We have developed screening processes designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR-T cell product candidates, but our screening process may fail to identify suitable donor material and we may discover failures with the material after production. We may also have to update our specifications for new risks that may emerge, such as to screen for new viruses.

54

We have strict specifications for donor material, which include specifications required by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to identify and obtain donor material that satisfy specifications, agree with regulatory authorities on appropriate specifications, or address variability in donor T cells, there may be inconsistencies in the product candidates we produce or we may be unable to initiate or continue ongoing clinical trials on the timelines we expect, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, approved autologous CAR-T therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, serious infections, prolonged cytopenia and hypogammaglobulinemia, and other serious adverse events that have resulted in patient deaths. We expect similar adverse events for our allogeneic CAR-T product candidates. Moreover, patients eligible for allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR-T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer and inability to wait for autologous CAR-T cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy. Our allogeneic CAR-T cell product candidates may also cause unique adverse events related to the differences between the donor and patients, such as graft versus host disease, or GvHD, or infusion reactions. GvHD results when allogeneic T cells start recognizing the patient’s normal tissue as foreign. 

We have designed our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology to eliminate the T cell receptor from the healthy donor T cells to reduce the risk of GvHD from the product candidate, as well as to remove the class I major histocompatibility complex from the cell surface in order to limit the patient’s immune system from attacking the allogeneic T cells and to improve the persistence of the CAR-T cells. However, the gene-editing of our product candidates may not be successful in limiting the risk of GvHD or premature rejection by the patient. In addition, results of our immuno-oncology clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.

If significant GvHD or other adverse events are observed with the administration of our product candidates, or if any of the product candidates is viewed as less safe or effective than autologous therapies or other allogenic therapies, our ability to develop other allogeneic therapies may be adversely affected.

If We Experience Delays Or Difficulties In The Enrollment Of Patients In Clinical Trials, Our Receipt Of Necessary Regulatory Approvals Could Be Delayed Or Prevented.

We or our collaborators may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for any product candidates we identify or develop if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or analogous regulatory authorities outside the United States, or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. Enrollment may be particularly challenging for any rare genetically defined diseases we may target in the future. In addition, if patients are unwilling to participate in our gene-editing trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to the biotechnology, gene therapy or gene-editing fields, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials with competing products, or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of any product candidates we may develop may be delayed. Moreover, some of our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that would treat the same indications as any product candidates we may develop, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors, including:

55

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

Our Business May Be Adversely Affected By The Ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic.

Our business could be adversely affected by health epidemics in regions where we have concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business activities and could cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers and CROs upon whom we rely. For example, beginning in late 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus has evolved into a global pandemic. As of late March 2020, the coronavirus had spread to most regions of the world. Since March 2020, we have been evaluating the actual and potential business impacts related to the coronavirus pandemic.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, we have experienced, and may further experience, disruptions, pauses and/or delays that have and could further adversely impact our business, operations, and/or associated timelines, including:

56

The coronavirus pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The ultimate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on our business operations is highly uncertain and subject to change and will depend on future developments, which cannot be accurately predicted, including the duration of the pandemic, additional or modified government actions, new information that will emerge concerning the severity and impact of COVID-19 and the coronavirus and the actions taken to contain coronavirus or address its impact in the short and long term, among others. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, our research programs, healthcare systems or the global economy. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

57

Positive Results From Early Preclinical Studies Or Preliminary Results from Clinical Trials Of Our Product Candidates Are Not Necessarily Predictive Of The Results Of Later Preclinical Studies And Any Future Clinical Trials Of Our Product Candidates. If We Cannot Replicate The Positive Results From Our Earlier Preclinical Studies Of Our Product Candidates In Our Later Preclinical Studies, Clinical Trials And Future Clinical Trials, We May Be Unable To Successfully Develop, Obtain Regulatory Approval For And Commercialize Our Product Candidates.

Any positive results from our preclinical studies or preliminary results from our clinical trials of our product candidates may not necessarily be predictive of the results from required later preclinical studies and clinical trials. Preliminary, interim and top-line data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data become available. Preliminary, interim or top-line data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Interim, top-line and preliminary data remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously announced. As a result, preliminary, interim and top-line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects. Moreover, preliminary, interim and top-line data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as more patient data become available when patients mature on study, patient enrollment continues or as other ongoing or future clinical trials with a product candidate further develop. Past results of clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically more extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our planned preclinical studies or any future clinical trials of our product candidates according to our current development timeline, the positive results from such preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be replicated in subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trial results.

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

Even If We Complete The Necessary Preclinical Studies And Clinical Trials, The Marketing Approval Process Is Expensive, Time-Consuming, And Uncertain And May Prevent Us From Obtaining Approvals For The Commercialization Of Any Product Candidates We May Develop. If We Are Not Able To Obtain, Or If There Are Delays In Obtaining, Required Regulatory Approvals, We Will Not Be Able To Commercialize, Or Will Be Delayed In Commercializing, Product Candidates We May Develop, And Our Ability To Generate Revenue Will Be Materially Impaired.

Any product candidates we may develop 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, by EMA in the EU 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 or clearance to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval or clearance. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biologic product candidate’s safety, purity, efficacy 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 product candidates we develop 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.

58

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

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

We May Never Obtain FDA Approval For Any Of Our Product Candidates In The United States, And Even If We Do, We May Never Obtain Approval For Or Commercialize Any Of Our Product Candidates In Any Other Jurisdiction, Which Would Limit Our Ability To Realize Their Full Market Potential.

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

Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation or Priority Review by the FDA, Orphan Drug Designation by the European Commission or PRIME Scheme by the EMA, Even If Granted for Any of Our Product Candidates, May Not Lead to a Faster Development, Regulatory Review or Approval Process, and It May Not Increase the Likelihood That Any of Our Product Candidates Will Receive Marking Approval.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We have obtained and may seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates. For instance, CTX001 has been granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA for the treatment of TDT and SCD and CTX120 has been granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation; we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it.

59

Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product's marketing application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA's time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA's priority review procedures.

We have obtained and may seek Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation for some of our product candidates. For instance, CTX001 has been granted RMAT designation by the FDA for the treatment of TDT and SCD. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to expedite review of any drug that meets the following criteria: it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like Breakthrough Therapy Designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation for other of our product candidates. RMAT designation does not change the FDA's standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

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

We have obtained and may seek orphan drug designation, or ODD, from the European Commission for some of our product candidates. For instance, CTX001 has been granted ODD by the European Commission for the treatment of TDT and SCD. An ODD provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the ability to apply for a centralized EU marketing authorization. The grant of a marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the European Commission nor the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for the same therapeutic indication in respect of a “similar medicinal product.” However, the market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for ODD because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. There are also a few limited derogations from the ten-year period of market exclusivity pursuant to which the European Commission may grant a marketing authorization for a similar medicinal product in the same therapeutic indication, including where the second applicant can establish that although their product is similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorized, the second product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain ODD for other of our other product candidates. ODD does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval.

Finally, we have obtained and may seek to qualify our product candidates under the PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme from the EMA. For instance, CTX001 has been granted PRIME designation for the treatment of SCD. The PRIME scheme is open to medicines under development and for which the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which where is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods or therapy or improving existing

60

ones. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain PRIME qualification for other of our product candidates. PRIME does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such qualification will result in expedited review or approval. Moreover, where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

Gene-Editing Products Are Novel And May Be Complex And Difficult To Manufacture. We Could Experience Manufacturing Problems That Result In Delays In The Development Or Commercialization Of Our Product Candidates Or Otherwise Harm Our Business.

The manufacturing process used to produce CRISPR/Cas9-based product candidates may be complex, as they are novel and have not been validated for clinical and commercial production. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, including the coronavirus pandemic, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. For additional information regarding the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, please see “Risk Factor— Our Business May Be Adversely Affected By The Ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic.”

Our product candidates will require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most small molecule drugs. Moreover, unlike small molecules, the physical and chemical properties of biologics generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, we will employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process works and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical grade materials that meet FDA, the EMA or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

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

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining directly or through contract manufacturing organizations the experienced scientific, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs.  

Adverse Public Perception Of Gene Editing And Cellular Therapy Products May Negatively Impact Demand For, Or Regulatory Approval Of, Our Product Candidates.

Our product candidates involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of gene-editing therapies for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. Public attitudes may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, consequently, our products may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Negative public reaction to gene therapy in general could result in greater government regulation and stricter labeling requirements of gene-editing products, including any of our product candidates, and could cause a decrease in the demand for any products we may develop. Adverse public attitudes may adversely impact our ability to enroll clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available.

In particular, gene-editing technology is subject to public debate and heightened regulatory scrutiny due to ethical concerns relating to the application of gene-editing technology to human embryos or the human germline. For example, in April 2016, a group of scientists reported on their attempts to edit the genome of human embryos to modify the gene for hemoglobin beta. This is the gene in which a mutation occurs in patients with the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia. Although this research was purposefully conducted in embryos that were not viable, the work prompted calls for a moratorium or other types of restrictions on gene editing of human eggs, sperm, and embryos. Additionally, in November 2018, Dr. Jiankui He, a biophysics researcher who was an associate

61

professor in the Department of Biology of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, reportedly claimed he had created the first human genetically edited babies, twin girls. This claim, and another that Dr. He had helped create a second gene-edited pregnancy, was subsequently confirmed by Chinese authorities and was negatively received by the public, in particular by those in the scientific community. News reports indicate that Dr. He was sentenced to three years in prison and fined $430,000 in December 2019 by the Chinese government for illegal medical practice in connection with such activities. In the wake of the claim, the World Health Organization established a new advisory committee to create global governance and oversight standards for human gene editing. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington, D.C. has called for a voluntary moratorium on the use of gene-editing technologies, including CRISPR/Cas9, in research that involves altering human embryos or human germline cells and has also released principles for the use of gene editing in therapeutic applications endorsed by a number of companies that use gene-editing technologies. Similarly, the NIH has announced that it would not fund any use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos, noting that there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against such work, including the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. Laws in the United Kingdom prohibit genetically modified embryos from being implanted into women, but embryos can be altered in research labs under license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Research on embryos is more tightly controlled in many other European countries.

Although we do not use our technologies to edit human embryos or the human germline, such public debate about the use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos and heightened regulatory scrutiny could prevent or delay our development of product candidates. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair our development and commercialization of product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. Adverse events in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or those of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing gene-editing technologies, even if not ultimately attributable to product candidates we may identify and develop, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of potential product candidates we may identify and develop, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

If, In The Future, We Are Unable To Establish Sales And Marketing Capabilities Or Enter Into Agreements With Third Parties To Sell And Market Products Based On Our Technologies, We May Not Be Successful In Commercializing Our Products If And When Any Products Candidates Are Approved And We May Not Be Able To Generate Any Revenue.

We do not currently have a sales or marketing infrastructure and, as a company, have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of therapeutic products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product candidate for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our product candidates if any are approved.

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

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

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

62

successful in commercializing our product candidates. Further, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

Even If We, Or Any Collaborators We May Have, Obtain Marketing Approvals For Any Product Candidates We Develop, 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.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents and requirements regarding recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA also may place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the Biologics License Application, or BLA, must submit a proposed REMS before it can obtain approval. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators we may have, receive marketing approval for one or more product candidates we develop, we, and such collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, and quality control. If we and such collaborators are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we and such collaborators could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or such collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects.

Any Product Candidate For Which We, Or Any Collaborators We May Have, Obtain Marketing Approval Could Be Subject To Restrictions Or Withdrawal From The Market, And We Or They May Be Subject To Substantial Penalties If We Or They Fail To Comply With Regulatory Requirements Or If We Or They Experience Unanticipated Problems With Our Products, When And If Any Of Them Are Approved.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory agencies impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we, or any collaborators we may have, do not market our products for their approved indications, we or they may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing by the FDA and other federal and state enforcement agencies, including the United States Department of Justice. Violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may also lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our or other collaborators’ manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

63

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

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law, including investigations of any of our vendors, 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 also inhibit our or our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The Commercial Success Of Any Of Our Product Candidates Will Depend Upon Its Degree Of Market Acceptance By Physicians, Patients, Third-party Payors And Others In The Medical Community.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting our products. Even with the requisite approvals from FDA in the United States, the EMA in the EU and other regulatory authorities internationally, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend, in significant part, on the acceptance of physicians, patients and health care payors of gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as medically necessary, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we commercialize may not gain acceptance by physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of gene therapy products and, in particular, our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors, including:

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and future clinical trials, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance following regulatory approval, if ever, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable.

64

We May Expend Our Limited Resources To Pursue A Particular Product Candidate Or Indication And Fail To Capitalize On Product Candidates Or Indications That May Be More Profitable Or For Which There Is A Greater Likelihood Of Success.

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

We Face Significant Competition In An Environment Of Rapid Technological Change, And The Possibility That Our Competitors May Achieve Regulatory Approval Before Us Or Develop Therapies That Are More Advanced Or Effective Than Ours, Which May Harm Our Business And Financial Condition And Our Ability To Successfully Market Or Commercialize Our Product Candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene editing, gene therapy and cell therapy fields, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we currently face, and will continue to face, substantial competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies; academic institutions and governmental agencies; and public and private research institutions, some or all of which may have greater access to capital or resources than we do. For any products that we may ultimately commercialize, not only will we compete with any existing therapies and those therapies currently in development, we will have to compete with new therapies that may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that utilize technologies encompassing genomic medicines to create therapies, including gene editing, gene therapy and cell therapy. In addition, we compete with companies working to develop therapies in areas related to our specific research and development programs.

Our platform and product focus is on the development of therapies using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. We are aware of several companies focused on developing therapies in various indications using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology, including Intellia Therapeutics and Editas Medicine. In addition, several academic groups have developed new gene-editing technologies based on CRISPR/Cas9, such as base editing and prime editing, that may have utility in therapeutic development. Companies seeking to develop therapies based on these technologies include Beam Therapeutics and Prime Medicine

There are also companies developing therapies using additional gene-editing technologies, such as transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, Precision BioSciences and Sangamo Therapeutics.

We are also aware of companies developing therapies in various areas related to our specific research and development programs. In hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Acceleron Pharma, Aruvant Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Editas Medicine, Global Blood Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Sangamo Therapeutics. In immuno-oncology, these companies include Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectis, Fate Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Poseida Therapeutics and Precision BioSciences. In regenerative medicine, these companies include BlueRock Therapeutics (acquired by Bayer in 2019), Sana Biotechnology and Semma Therapeutics (acquired by Vertex in 2019). In in vivo, these companies include Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, Ultragenyx and Verve Therapeutics.

Gene editing is a highly active field of research and new technologies, related or unrelated to CRISPR, may be discovered and create new competition. These new technologies could have advantages over CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in some applications and there can be no certainty that other gene-editing technologies will not be considered better or more attractive than our technology for the development of products. For example, Editas has exclusively licensed a CRISPR system involving a different CRISPR-associated nuclease, Cas12a (Cpf1), which can also edit human DNA, as well as advanced forms of Cas9. Editas and certain of its scientific founders have asserted that Cas12a may work better than Cas9 in some cases. Cas9 may be determined to be less attractive than Cas12a or other CRISPR proteins that have yet to be discovered. Multiple academic labs and companies have also published on other CRISPR-associated nuclease variants that can edit human DNA.

In addition to competition from other gene-editing therapies or gene or cell therapies, any product we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody or protein therapies. In addition, new scientific discoveries may cause CRISPR/Cas9 technology, or gene editing as a whole, to be considered an inferior form of therapy.

65

In addition, many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, have broader acceptance and higher rates of reimbursement by third-party payors or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, and availability of reimbursement.

If our current programs are approved for the indications for which we are currently planning clinical trials, they may compete with other products currently under development, including gene editing, gene therapy, and cell therapy products. Competition with other related products currently under development may include competition for clinical trial sites, patient recruitment, and product sales. In addition, due to the intense research and development taking place in the gene-editing field, including by us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and highly competitive. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Moreover, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face more litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products and our patents may not be sufficient to prevent our competitors from commercializing competing products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize product candidates with significant market potential, which will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities. These activities can include completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, obtaining marketing and reimbursement approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling those products that are approved and satisfying any post marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in our value also could cause shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

Even If We Are Able To Commercialize Any Product Candidates, Such Products May Become Subject To Unfavorable Pricing Regulations, Third-party Reimbursement Practices, Or Healthcare Reform Initiatives, Which Would Harm Our Business.

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

66

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Third-party payors, such as private health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and governmental programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental and private 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 drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

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

Risks Related to Our Relationships with Third Parties

If Conflicts Arise Between Us And Our Collaborators Or Strategic Partners, These Parties May Act In A Manner Adverse To Us And Could Limit Our Ability To Implement Our Strategies.

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

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

Our Collaborators Or Strategic Partners May Decide To Adopt Alternative Technologies Or May Be Unable To Develop Commercially Viable Products With Our Technology, Which Would Negatively Impact Our Revenues And Our Strategy To Develop These Products.

Our collaborators or strategic partners may adopt alternative technologies, which could decrease the marketability of our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. Additionally, because our current collaborators or strategic partners are and we anticipate that any future collaborators or strategic partners will be working on more than one development project, they could choose to shift their resources to projects other than those they are working on with us. If they do so, this would delay our ability to test our technology and would delay or terminate the development of potential products based on our CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. Further, our collaborators and strategic partners may elect not to develop products arising out of our collaborative and strategic partnering arrangements or to devote sufficient resources to the development, manufacturing, marketing or sale of these products. The failure to develop and commercialize a product candidate pursuant to our agreements with our current or future collaborators would prevent us from receiving future milestone and royalty payments which would negatively impact our revenues.

67

Our Collaborators And Strategic Partners May Control Aspects Of Our Clinical Trials and Commercialization Efforts, Which Could Result In Delays And Other Obstacles In The Commercialization Of Our Proposed Products And Materially Harm Our Results Of Operations.

For some programs, we will depend on third-party collaborators and strategic partners to design and conduct our clinical trials, and for any approved products, the commercialization of such products. As a result, we may not be able to conduct these programs in the manner or on the time schedule we currently contemplate, which may negatively impact our business operations. In addition, if any of these collaborators or strategic partners withdraw support for our programs or proposed products or otherwise impair their development or commercialization, our business could be negatively affected. For example, in October 2015, we entered into the 2015 Collaboration Agreement with Vertex to research, develop and commercialize new treatments aimed at the underlying genetic causes of human diseases, including beta thalassemia and sickle cell. In December 2017, we entered into the JDA with Vertex initially for the development and commercialization of CTX001 for beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease. In June 2019, we entered into the 2019 Collaboration Agreement with Vertex to develop and commercialize products for the treatment DMD and DM1.

Under our 2015 Collaboration Agreement with Vertex, Vertex had sole authority to select genetic targets to pursue and we do not have control over the development of any product candidates for the selected genetic targets. Under the JDA, we and Vertex have an equal number of representatives on the various committees contemplated by the JDA, which will prevent us from having sole control of the development of CTX001 or any future product candidates subject to the JDA. Furthermore, pursuant to the JDA, Vertex will be solely responsible for the commercialization activities of any approved products subject to the JDA outside of the United States. Additionally, under the 2019 Collaboration Agreement with Vertex, Vertex has sole authority to develop and commercialize products under the agreement (subject to our option to co-develop and co-commercialize products for the treatment of DM1). Our lack of control over the clinical development and commercialization activities in our agreements with Vertex could cause delays or other difficulties in the development and commercialization of product candidates, which may prevent among other things, completion of intended IND filings in a timely fashion, if at all, or the completion or delay in BLA filings.

In addition, the termination of our agreements with Vertex would prevent us from receiving any milestone, royalty payments and other benefits under that agreement, which may have a materially adverse effect on our results of operations.

We May Seek To Establish Additional Collaborations And, If We Are Not Able To Establish Them On Commercially Reasonable Terms, We May Have To Alter Our Development And Commercialization Plans.

Our product candidate development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for any additional collaborations will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. The terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

We may also be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. For example, we have granted exclusive rights to Vertex for certain genetic targets, and during the term of the collaboration agreements, we will be restricted from granting rights to other parties to use our gene-editing technology to pursue therapies that address these genetic targets. The non-competition provisions in this agreement could limit our ability to enter into strategic collaborations with future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate additional collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. If we are unable to negotiate and enter into new collaborations, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or

68

commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

We Expect To Rely On Third Parties To Conduct Our Clinical Trials And Certain Aspects Of Our Preclinical Studies For Our Product Candidates. If These Third Parties Do Not Successfully Carry Out Their Contractual Duties, Comply With Regulatory Requirements Or Meet Expected Deadlines, We May Not Be Able To Obtain Regulatory Approval For Or Commercialize Our Product Candidates And Our Business Could Be Substantially Harmed.

We expect to rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct future clinical trials and we currently rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies for our product candidates. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and any future clinical trials we sponsor are conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards and our reliance on CROs will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with regulations, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

We and our CROs will be required to comply with regulations, including GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial patients are adequately informed, among other things, of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials and their rights are protected. These regulations are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and comparable health regulatory authorities for any drugs in clinical development. The FDA enforces GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and FDA or comparable health regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our future clinical trials will comply with GCPs. In addition, our future clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced in accordance with the requirements in cGMP regulations. Our failure or the failure of our CROs to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action and require significantly greater expenditures.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our product candidates, CROs will conduct all of the clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct future preclinical studies and clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the CROs do not perform preclinical studies and future clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates, or our development programs may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on preclinical and clinical data collected by our CROs, we could be required to repeat, extend the

69

duration of, or increase the size of any clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

We Expect To Rely On Third Parties To Manufacture Our Clinical Product Supplies, And We Intend To Rely On Third Parties For At Least A Portion Of The Manufacturing Process Of Our Product Candidates. Our Business Could Be Harmed If The Third Parties Fail To Provide Us With Sufficient Quantities Of Product Inputs Or Fail To Do So At Acceptable Quality Levels Or Prices.

We do not currently own any facility that may be used as our clinical-scale manufacturing and processing facility and must rely on outside vendors to manufacture supplies and process our product candidates in connection with any clinical trial we undertake of such product candidates. While we announced that we are building a cell therapy manufacturing facility for clinical and commercial production of our investigational cell therapy product candidates in Framingham, Massachusetts, this facility is not yet operational and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to build out our internal manufacturing capacity. We have not yet caused any product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so for any of our product candidates. We will make changes as we work to optimize the manufacturing process, and we cannot be sure that even minor changes in the process will result in therapies that are safe and effective.

The facilities used to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA, or other health regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to the FDA or other health regulatory agencies. We will not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with regulatory requirements, known as cGMP requirements, for manufacture of our product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable health regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. In addition, if our contract manufacturers are unable to timely perform or become distracted as a result of actions taken by the FDA or a comparable health regulatory authority or as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, we may experience manufacturing delays or may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which in each case, would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

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, Exclusion From Government Healthcare Programs, Contractual Damages, Reputational Harm And Diminished Profits And Future Earnings.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, once we begin commercializing our product candidates, if ever, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the U.S. federal government and states as well as other national, regional or local governments in other jurisdictions in which we conduct our business.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates that we may develop for which we obtain marketing approval. Our 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 product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

70

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

Payments made to physicians in certain EU 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 EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct applicable in the EU member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative 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. 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. If our operations, including activities that may be conducted by sales and marketing team we establish, 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 is 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.

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

Our Future Success Depends On Our Ability To Retain Key Executives And To Attract, Retain And Motivate Qualified Personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, commercial and business development expertise of Dr. Samarth Kulkarni, our Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees or consultants could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. If we are unable to retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

71

We will also need to recruit and retain qualified scientific, clinical and commercial personnel as we advance the development of our product candidates and product pipeline. We may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific, clinical and commercial personnel from universities and research institutions. Failure to succeed in clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified scientific personnel.

Swiss Corporate Governance With Respect To Executive Compensation May Affect Our Business.

The Swiss Federal Council Ordinance Against Excessive Compensation at Public Companies, or the Ordinance, among other things, (a) requires a binding shareholder “say on pay” vote with respect to the compensation of members of our executive management and board of directors, (b) generally prohibits the making of severance, advance, transaction premiums and similar payments to members of our executive management and board of directors and (c) requires companies to specify various compensation-related matters in their articles of association, thus requiring them to be approved by a shareholders’ vote. At our annual general meetings, our shareholders are required to approve the maximum aggregate compensation of our board of directors and our executive management team. The Ordinance further provides for criminal penalties against directors and members of executive management in case of non-compliance with certain of its requirements. The Ordinance may negatively affect our ability to attract and retain executive management and members of our board of directors.

We Will Need To Develop And Expand Our Company, And We May Encounter Difficulties In Managing This Development And Expansion, Which Could Disrupt Our Operations.

As of December 31, 2020, we had 410 full-time employees and we expect to continue to increase our number of employees and the scope of our operations in 2021 and beyond as we seek to advance development and if successful, commercialization, of our product candidates. To manage our anticipated development and expansion, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these expansion activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

Our Employees, Principal Investigators, Consultants And Commercial Partners May Engage In Misconduct Or Other Improper Activities, Including Non-compliance With Regulatory Standards And Requirements And Insider Trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, consultants, commercial partners, and principal investigators. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the EU 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 in other jurisdictions, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations 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. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

72

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 Harm Our Business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We will not be able to eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from any use by us 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 for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Product Liability Lawsuits Against Us Could Cause Us To Incur Substantial Liabilities And Could Limit Commercialization Of Any Product Candidates That We May Develop.

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

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

If We Fail To Establish And Maintain Proper And Effective Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, Our Operating Results And Our Ability To Operate Our Business Could Be Harmed.

Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place so that we can produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. We are required to comply with the requirements of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, we must perform system and process evaluation, document our controls and perform testing of our key control over financial reporting to allow management and our independent public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our testing, or the subsequent testing by our independent public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, or if we or our accounting firm identify deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, the market price of our stock would likely decline and we could be subject to lawsuits, sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources.

We continue to invest in more robust technology and in more resources in order to manage those reporting requirements. Implementing the appropriate changes to our internal controls may distract our officers and employees, result in substantial costs if we implement new processes or modify our existing processes and require significant time to complete. Any difficulties or delays in implementing these controls could impact our ability to timely report our financial results. In addition, we currently rely on a manual process in some areas which increases our exposure to human error or intervention in reporting our financial results. For these reasons, we may encounter difficulties in the timely and accurate reporting of our financial results, which would impact our ability to provide

73

our investors with information in a timely manner. As a result, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, and our stock price could decline.

In addition, any such changes do not guarantee that we will be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy could prevent us from accurately reporting our financial results.

We May Fail To Comply With Evolving European And Other Privacy Laws.

We currently conduct clinical trials in the European Economic Area, or EEA. As a result, we are subject to additional privacy laws. The General Data Protection Regulation, (EU) 2016/679, or GDPR, became effective on May 25, 2018, and deals with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR increases substantially the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. Given the limited enforcement of the GDPR to date, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on our trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law.

In particular, national laws of member states of the EU have implemented national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different and more restrictive obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows member state nations to enact laws that impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty.

In addition, we must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the United States, in compliance with European data protection laws. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our Internal Computer Systems, Or Those Of Our Collaborators Or Other Contractors Or Consultants, May Fail Or Suffer Security Breaches, Which Could Result In A Material Disruption Of Our Product Development Programs.

Our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. 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, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

We could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification or intentional or accidental release or loss of information maintained in the information systems and networks of our company and our vendors, including personal information of our employees and study subjects, and company and vendor confidential data. In addition, outside parties may attempt to penetrate our systems or those of our vendors or fraudulently induce our personnel or the personnel of our vendors to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data and/or systems. We may experience threats to our data and systems, including

74

malicious codes and viruses, phishing and other cyber-attacks. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time. If a material breach of our information technology systems or those of our vendors occurs, the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures could be harmed and our reputation and credibility could be damaged. We could be required to expend significant amounts of money and other resources to repair or replace information systems or networks. In addition, we could be subject to regulatory actions and/or claims made by individuals and groups in private litigation involving privacy issues related to data collection and use practices and other data privacy laws and regulations, including claims for misuse or inappropriate disclosure of data, as well as unfair or deceptive practices. Although we develop and maintain systems and controls designed to prevent these events from occurring, and we have a process to identify and mitigate threats, the development and maintenance of these systems, controls and processes is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become increasingly sophisticated. Moreover, despite our efforts, the possibility of these events occurring cannot be eliminated entirely. As we outsource more of our information systems to vendors, engage in more electronic transactions with payors and patients, and rely more on cloud-based information systems, the related security risks will increase and we will need to expend additional resources to protect our technology and information systems. In addition, there can be no assurance that our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party contractors, or our consultants’ efforts to implement adequate security and control measures, will be sufficient to protect us against breakdowns, service disruption, data deterioration or loss in the event of a system malfunction, or prevent data from being stolen or corrupted in the event of a cyberattack, security breach, industrial espionage attacks or insider threat attacks which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm.

Our Business Is Subject To Economic, Political, Regulatory And Other Risks Associated With International Operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. We and a number of our suppliers and collaborative and clinical study relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

Legal, political and economic uncertainty surrounding the exit of the U.K. from the EU may be a source of instability in international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, adversely affect our operations in the U.K. and pose additional risks to our business, revenue, financial condition, and results of operations.

On June 23, 2016, the U.K. held a referendum in which a majority of the eligible members of the electorate voted to leave the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on EU, the U.K. ceased being a Member State of the EU on January 31, 2020. The implementation period began February 1, 2020 and continued until December 31, 2020, during which the U.K.

75

continued to follow all of the EU’s rules, the EU’s pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the U,K, and the U.K.’s trading relationship remained the same. The U.K. and the EU have signed a EU-U.K. Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and will become formally applicable once ratified by both the U.K. and the EU. This agreement provides details on how some aspects of the U.K. and EU’s relationship will operate going forwards however there are still many uncertainties. How the TCA will take effect in practice is also still unknown. This lack of clarity on future U.K. laws and regulations and their interaction with the EU laws and regulations may negatively impact foreign direct investment in the U.K., increase costs, depress economic activity and restrict access to capital.

The uncertainty concerning the U.K’s legal, political and economic relationship with the EU after Brexit may be a source of instability in the international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, and/or otherwise adversely affect trading agreements or similar cross-border co-operation arrangements (whether economic, tax, fiscal, legal, regulatory or otherwise) beyond the date of Brexit.

These developments may have a significant adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and could significantly reduce global market liquidity and limit the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. In particular, it could also lead to a period of considerable uncertainty in relation to the U.K. financial and banking markets, as well as on the regulatory process in Europe. Asset valuations, currency exchange rates and credit ratings may also be subject to increased market volatility. In addition, if other EU member states pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access between the U.K. and other EU member states or among the European Economic Area overall could be diminished or eliminated.

Such a withdrawal from the EU is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the restrictions on the U.K’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the EU, or single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our current and future operations (including business activities conducted by third parties and contract manufacturers on our behalf) and clinical activities (including, without limitation, clinical activities for CTX001) in the U.K. In addition to the foregoing, our U.K. operations support our current and future operations and clinical activities (including, without limitation, clinical activities for CTX001) in other countries in the EU and European Economic Area, or EEA, and these operations and clinical activities could be disrupted by Brexit.

We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations. Now that the U.K. has left the EU, the U.K. will lose the benefits of global trade agreements negotiated by the EU on behalf of its members, which may result in increased trade barriers that could make our doing business in the EU and the EEA more difficult. Since the regulatory framework in the U.K. covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our product candidates in the U.K, as U.K. legislation can now diverge from EU legislation. For instance, Great Britain will now no longer be covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EEA-wide marketing and manufacturing authorizations from the EMA (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland) and a separate process for authorization of drug products will be required in Great Britain, resulting in an authorization covering the United Kingdom or Great Britain only. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the U.K. in the long-term. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any regulatory approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the U.K. and/or the EU and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the U.K. and/or EU for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. Even prior to any change to the U.K’s relationship with the EU, the announcement of Brexit has created economic uncertainty surrounding the terms of Brexit and its consequences could adversely impact customer confidence resulting in customers reducing their spending budgets on our solutions, which could adversely affect our business, revenue, financial condition, results of operations and could adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

Our Business Operations Have a Substantial International Footprint and We May Further Expand In The Future, Which Presents Challenges In Managing Our Business Operations.

We are headquartered in Zug, Switzerland and have offices in the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition, we may expand our international operations into other countries in the future. While we have acquired significant management and other personnel with substantial experience, conducting our business in multiple countries subjects us to a variety of risks and complexities that may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects, including, among other things:

76

We continue to expand our operations, and our corporate structure and tax structure is complex. In connection with our current and future potential partnerships, we are actively engaged in developing and applying technologies and intellectual property with a view toward commercialization of products globally, often with commercialization partners. In connection with those activities, we already have and will likely continue to engage in complex cross-border and global transactions involving our technology, intellectual property and other assets, between us and other entities such as partners and licensees, and between us and our subsidiaries. Such cross-border and global arrangements are both difficult to manage and can potentially give rise to complexities in areas such as tax treatment, particularly since we are subject to multiple tax regimes and different tax authorities can also take different views from each other, even as regards the same cross-border transaction or arrangement. There can be no assurance that we will effectively manage this increased complexity without experiencing operating inefficiencies, control deficiencies or tax liabilities. Significant management time and effort is required to effectively manage the increased complexity of our company, and our failure to successfully do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If We Are Unable To Obtain Or Protect Intellectual Property Rights Related to Our Proprietary Gene-Editing Technology And Product Candidates, We May Not Be Able To Compete Effectively In Our Markets.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other jurisdictions with respect to our CRISPR/Cas9 platform technology and any proprietary product candidates and technology we develop. We rely upon a combination of intellectual property rights, including patent rights, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our gene-editing technology and product candidates. Presently we have rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patent rights that we own, to develop our gene-editing technology and/or product candidates. For example, through our 2014 exclusive license with Dr. Charpentier, we exclusively license certain rights to a worldwide patent portfolio, including more than fifty (50) granted or allowed patents, as well as pending patent applications, which covers various aspects of our genome editing platform technology, including, for example, compositions of matter, including additional CRISPR/TRACR/Cas9 complexes, and methods of use, including their use in targeting or cutting DNA. We refer to this worldwide patent portfolio as the “Patent Portfolio”. In addition, we have filed numerous patent applications covering our product candidates.

We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property to cover our platform technology and filing patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions related to our technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our CRISPR/Cas9 platform technology and any proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

However, the strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field generally, and the genome-editing field in particular, involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain and we cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patent rights that we own or in-license will issue, the breadth of any such patent rights or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. For example, the scope of patent protection that will be available to us in the United States and in other countries is uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our intellectual property, obtain, maintain, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and in-licensed patents. With respect to both in-licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors, or if any such patents will be found invalid, unenforceable or not infringed if challenged by our competitors.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we

77

will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants advisors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our gene-editing technology and/or product candidates. It is possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications.  Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with any degree of certainty whether the inventors of our licensed patents and applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or any licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, there is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application.

The ultimate outcome of any pending or allowed patent application we file is uncertain and the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage.

Additionally, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and in other jurisdictions. There is a substantial amount of litigation as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, reexamination, and other post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we expect this to be true for the CRISPR/Cas9 space as well. See Risk Factor - Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts for more information. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to practice the invention or stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and in-licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Competitors may also claim that they invented the inventions claimed in such issued patents or patent applications prior to our inventors, or may have filed patent applications before our inventors did. A competitor may also claim that our products and technology infringe its patents and that we therefore cannot practice our technology as claimed under our patent applications, if issued. An adverse determination in any such claim may result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Competitors may also contest our patents, if issued, by showing that the invention was not patent-eligible, was not novel, was obvious or that the patent claims failed any other requirement for patentability. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights or allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us.

Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in additional interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a non-U.S. patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

Further, even if they are unchallenged, our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold is threatened, this could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and could threaten our ability to commercialize, product candidates. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our genome-editing platform advances and product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies

78

or products in a non-infringing manner. For example, we are aware that third parties have suggested the use of the CRISPR technology in conjunction with a protein other than Cas9. Our owned and in-licensed patents may not cover such technology. If our competitors commercialize the CRISPR technology in conjunction with a protein other than Cas9, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially adversely affected. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

Because our gene-editing technology and product candidates could require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business could depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license such intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. Furthermore, as industry, government, academia and other biotechnology and pharmaceutical research expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot guarantee that our gene-editing technology, product candidates or the use of such product candidates do not infringe third-party patents. Because patent rights are granted jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, our freedom to practice certain technologies, including our ability to research, develop and commercialize our product candidates, may differ by country.

Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. Our pending and future patent applications or the patent applications that we obtain rights to through in-licensing arrangements may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or future product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all.

Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

79

Third-party Claims Of Intellectual Property Infringement Against Us, Our Licensors Or Our Collaborators May Prevent Or Delay Our Product Discovery and Development Efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the valid patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As industry, government, academia and other biotechnology and pharmaceutical research expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot guarantee that our technology, future product candidates or the use of such product candidates do not infringe third-party patents. It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. Because patent rights are granted jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, our freedom to practice certain technologies, including our ability to research, develop and commercialize our product candidates, may differ by country.

Third parties may assert that we infringe their patents or that we are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization, and may sue us. There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover product candidates we discover and develop. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies or the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates infringes upon these patents. If any such third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover our technologies or product candidates, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Third-party Claims Of Intellectual Property May Prevent Or Delay Our Product Discovery and Development Efforts.

Third parties may seek to claim intellectual property rights that encompass or overlap with intellectual property that we own or license from them or others. Legal proceedings may be initiated to determine the scope and ownership of these rights, and could result in our loss of rights, including injunctions or other equitable relief that could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to, or the correct inventorship of, our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation, interference or derivation proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

For example, third parties could assert that we do not have rights to certain CRISPR/Cas9 technologies, or could assert and have asserted in the past, that the CVC Group does not have rights to certain CRISPR/Cas9 technologies, including inventorship and ownership rights to some of the CVC Group’s patents, or that such rights are limited.

Specifically, the Broad Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, in some instances, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, which we refer to individually and collectively as the “Broad” owns a patent family that includes issued patents in the United States and Europe that claim certain aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells. In January 2016, the USPTO declared an interference (Interference No. 106,048, or ’048 interference) between one of the then pending U.S. patent applications (now issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,266,850) included in the Patent Portfolio and twelve issued U.S. patents owned jointly by the Broad to determine which set of inventors invented first and, thus, is entitled to patents on the invention in the United States. The PTAB concluded that the declared interference should be discontinued because the involved claim sets were considered patentably distinct from each other. Following appeal by the CVC Group, on September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision to terminate the interference proceeding without determining which inventors actually invented the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology in eukaryotic cells.

Further, in June 2019, the USPTO declared another interference (Interference No. 106,115, or ‘115 interference) between fourteen (14) pending U.S. patent applications co-owned by the CVC Group and thirteen (13) patents and a patent application co-owned by the Broad. The Broad patents include those that were the subject of the ’048 interference. In September 2020, the PTAB issued an order that, among other matters, advanced the proceeding to the priority phase, where both the CVC Group, which will have the burden of proof, and the Broad will present their respective evidence seeking to prove that they, invented first. This interference is

80

ongoing and will remain pending through the PTAB’s judgment on priority-of-invention. The PTAB’s judgment may be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

In addition to the Broad, other third parties, such as Vilnius University, ToolGen, Inc., MilliporeSigma (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA) and Harvard University, filed patent applications claiming CRISPR/Cas9-related inventions around or within a year after the CVC Group application was filed and allege (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by the CVC Group before the CVC Group. If the USPTO deems the scope of the claims of one or more of these parties to sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the CVC Group application, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims. For example, in December 2020, the USPTO declared an interference (Interference No. 106,127, or ‘127 interference) between a ToolGen patent application that claims certain aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, and the same fourteen pending U.S. patent applications co-owned by the CVC Group that are involved in the ’115 interference. This interference is ongoing and will remain pending through the PTAB’s judgment on priority-of-invention. The PTAB’s judgment may be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Each of the CVC Group, the Broad, ToolGen, Vilnius University, MilliporeSigma and Harvard University can pursue existing or new patent applications in the United States and elsewhere. Because the CVC Group and these other third parties all allege owning intellectual property claiming overlapping aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems and methods to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, our ability to market and sell CRISPR/Cas9-based human therapeutics may be adversely impacted depending on the scope and actual ownership over the inventions claimed in the competing patent portfolios.

Going forward, the USPTO could declare new interferences with the CVC Group, or us individually, related to the uses of the CRISPR/Cas9 technologies. Furthermore, we and the CVC Group continue to prosecute other patent claims covering the CRISPR/Cas9 inventions, which could also result in allowable or issued patents in the United States. Certain of the claims being prosecuted by the CVC Group and us, if found allowable by the USPTO, could lead to interference proceedings against patents or patent applications owned by third parties, including those listed above. If the USPTO deems the scope of the claims of one or more of these parties to sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from a patent or patent application within the Patent Portfolio or our portfolio of patents, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the first inventor of such claims. We cannot be certain which of these results, if any, will actually occur. If there are additional interferences, either party to the interference could again appeal an adverse decision to the Federal Circuit. Additionally, any of the CVC Group’s existing or new patents or our existing or new patents could be the subject of other challenges to their validity or enforceability. The effects that any such results may have on us and our intellectual property position are currently unknown.

If any third-party were to succeed in its interference and prevail in their inventorship claims or obtain patent claims that cover our product candidates or related activities through these various legal proceedings, such party could seek to assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR/Cas9-based activities, including commercialization. Third parties asserting their patent rights against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively limit or block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. If we are found to infringe a third-party’s valid intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third-party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology, or avoid or invalidate such third party’s intellectual property. These third parties would be under no obligation to grant to us any such license and such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we and our partners may need to cease the practice of our core gene editing, and the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing one or more of our product candidates, force us to redesign our infringing products or force us to cease some or all of our business operations, any of which could materially harm our business and could prevent us from further developing and commercializing our proposed future product candidates thereby causing us significant harm. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense, would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business and may impact our reputation.

In any case, it may be years before there is a final determination on priority. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement with Dr. Charpentier, we are responsible for covering or reimbursing Dr. Charpentier’s patent prosecution, defense and related costs associated with our in-licensed technology.

Third-party owned IP relating to CRISPR/Cas9 or other related technologies necessary to develop, manufacture and commercialize viable CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics – such as compositions of the products or components, methods of treatment,

81

delivery technologies, chemical modifications, and analytical and manufacturing methods – could adversely impact our ability to ultimately market and sell products. Third parties may own intellectual property, including patents, that cover all or aspects of our technologies and potential products, and may be necessary for us to develop or commercialize viable products. If we are unable to successfully license, avoid or challenge such third-party intellectual property, we may not be able to develop and commercialize viable products in all or certain jurisdictions. In addition, if the intellectual property covering our products or technologies that we own or license were to be legally impaired or lost, we may be unable to realize sufficient financial returns to support the development or commercialization of our products.

Further, third parties routinely file international counterparts of their U.S. applications, some of which have been granted or could in the future be granted in Europe and/or other non-U.S. jurisdictions. We, as well as other parties have initiated opposition proceedings against some of these grants, and we may in the future oppose other grants to these or other applicants. Similarly, our intellectual property is and may in the future become involved in opposition proceedings in Europe or other jurisdictions. These oppositions could lead to the revocation of the patents in whole or in part, or could lead to the claims being narrowed in a way that could impair or preclude our ability to enforce the patents against competitors in Europe. For example, in February 2018, several parties filed oppositions in the European Patent Office to the grant of our first in-licensed European patent. Later in 2018 and in 2019, several parties filed oppositions in the European Patent Office to the grant of both our second and third in-licensed European patent. In early 2020, the European Patent Office upheld our first in-licensed European patent in amended form. Opposition proceedings can lead to the revocation of a patent in its entirety; the maintenance of the patent as granted, or the maintenance of a patent in amended form. Opposition proceedings typically take years to resolve, including the time taken by appeals that can be filed by any of the parties. We cannot guarantee the outcome of the oppositions to our in-licensed European patent, and an adverse result could preclude us from enforcing our rights in Europe against third parties.

We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. In the future, we may become party to legal matters and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Our Rights To Develop And Commercialize Our Technology And Product Candidates Are Subject, In Part, To The Terms And Conditions Of Licenses Granted To Us By Others.

We are reliant upon licenses to certain intellectual property from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our gene-editing technology and product candidates. These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use or cover all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included in all of our licenses.  

Moreover, under our in-license agreements, including our 2014 exclusive license agreement with Dr. Charpentier, we will be required to pay royalties based on our revenues from sales of our products utilizing the licensed technologies and these royalty payments could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any products that we may seek to commercialize. Under each of our in-license agreements with Dr. Charpentier, we have an obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and obtain regulatory approval to market a licensed therapeutic product. Our in-license agreements with Dr. Charpentier also include an obligation to file an IND (or its equivalent in a major market country) by April 2021 and an obligation to file an IND (or its equivalent in a major market country) by April 2024. We may not be successful in meeting these obligations in the future on a timely basis or at all. Our failure to meet these obligations may give Dr. Charpentier the right to terminate our license rights. We will need to outsource and rely on third parties for many aspects of the clinical development of the products covered under our license agreements. Delay or failure by these third parties could adversely affect our ability to meet our diligence obligations and the continuation of our license agreements with third-party licensors.

In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in‑licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

82

The Intellectual Property That Protects Our Core Gene-Editing Technology Is Jointly Owned, And Our License Is From Only One Of The Joint Owners, Materially Limiting Our Rights In The United States And In Other Jurisdictions

The Patent Portfolio we have exclusively licensed from Dr. Charpentier is the core patent protection for our gene-editing technology. However, that family includes other named inventors who assigned their rights either to California or Vienna. As such, the Patent Portfolio is currently co-owned by Dr. Charpentier, California, and Vienna. On December 15, 2016, we entered into a Consent to Assignments, Licensing and Common Ownership and Invention Management Agreement, or IMA, with California, Vienna and their licensees including Caribou and Caribou’s licensee Intellia Therapeutics. Under the IMA, the co-owners provided reciprocal worldwide cross-consents to each of the other co-owners’ licensees and sublicensees, and agreed to a number of other commitments and obligations with respect to supporting and managing the underlying CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing intellectual property, including a cost-sharing agreement. As explained more fully below, that leaves us in a position of holding only non-exclusive or co-exclusive rights to the patent rights that protect our core gene-editing technology, and we must continue to satisfy our contractual obligations under the IMA in order to maintain the effectiveness of the consents by California and Vienna to our license from Dr. Charpentier.

In the United States, each co-owner has the freedom to license and exploit the technology. As a result, we do not have exclusive access to any intellectual property rights that Dr. Charpentier co-owns with another entity, such as California and Vienna. Our license with Dr. Charpentier is therefore non-exclusive with respect to such co-owned rights. Furthermore, in the United States each co-owner is required to be joined as a party to any claim or action we may wish to bring to enforce those patent rights. Moreover, in the United States, non-exclusive licenses have no standing to bring a patent infringement action before a court. Therefore, for the patents owned with California and Vienna we have no ability to pursue third party infringement claims without cooperation of California and Vienna and potentially their licensees. Although we have entered into the IMA with Vienna and California and their licensees, which provides for, among other things, notice of and coordination in the event of third-party infringement of the patent rights within the Patent Portfolio, there can be no assurance that Vienna and California will cooperate with us in any future infringement. If we are unable to enforce our core patent rights licensed from Dr. Charpentier, we may be unable to prevent third parties from competing with us and may be unable to persuade companies to sublicense our technology, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If We Experience Disputes With The Third Parties That We In-license Intellectual Property Rights From, We Could Lose License Rights That Are Important To Our Business

We license the intellectual property that covers our gene-editing technology from a third party, and we expect to continue to in-license additional third-party intellectual property rights as we expand our gene-editing technology. Disputes may arise with the third parties from whom we license our intellectual property rights from for a variety of reasons, including:

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

83

We May Not Be Successful In Obtaining Or Maintaining Necessary Rights To Any Product Candidates or Other Technologies We May Develop Through Acquisitions And In-Licenses.

We currently have rights to intellectual property, through in-licenses from third parties, to identify and develop product candidates, as well as use other technologies. Many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions are competing with us in the field of gene-editing technology and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business. For example, we are aware of several third-party patent applications that, if issued, may be construed to cover our gene-editing technology and product candidates. In order to avoid infringing these third-party patents, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses from such third party intellectual property holders. We may also require licenses from third parties for certain modified or improved components of gene-editing technology, such as modified nucleic acids, as well as non-CRISPR/Cas9 technologies such as delivery methods that we are evaluating for use with product candidates we may develop. In addition, with respect to any patents we co-own with third parties, we may require licenses to such co-owners’ interest to such patents. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for product candidates we may develop and gene-editing technology. The licensing or acquisition of third party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do may be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates or technology that we may seek to acquire. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program, technology, or product candidate, or discontinue the practice of our core CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Issued Patents Covering Our Technology And Product Candidates Could Be Found Invalid Or Unenforceable If Challenged In Court or before the USPTO or comparable foreign authority.

If we or one of our licensors initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering a product candidate we may develop or our technology, including CRISPR/Cas9, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution.

Third parties have raised challenges to the validity of certain of our in-licensed patent applications, such as our in-licensed CRISPR/Cas9 patent applications in the context of third-party observations and oppositions filed in Europe and Australia, and may in the future raise similar claims related to our in-licensed and owned patent applications and patents before administrative bodies in the United States or in other jurisdictions, even outside the context of litigation. Mechanisms for challenging the validity of patents in patent offices include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could – after exhausting available appeals – result in the loss of our patent applications or patents, or their narrowing in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we may develop. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The Intellectual Property Landscape Around Gene-Editing Technology, Including CRISPR/Cas9, Is Highly Dynamic, And Third Parties May Initiate And Prevail In Legal Proceedings Alleging That The Patents That We In-License Or Own Are Invalid Or That We Are Infringing, Misappropriating, Or Otherwise Violating Their Intellectual Property Rights, The Outcome Of Which Would Be Uncertain And Could Have A Material Adverse Effect On The Success Of Our Business.

The field of gene editing, especially in the area of gene-editing technology, is still in its infancy, and no such products have reached the market. Due to the intense research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field, the intellectual property landscape is in flux, and it may remain uncertain for the coming years. There may

84

be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We are subject to and may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and any product candidates we may develop, including re-examination interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in other jurisdictions such as oppositions before the European Patent Office. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. If we are unable to prove that these patents are invalid and we are not able to obtain or maintain a license on commercially reasonable terms, such patents could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business. If we are found to infringe such third-party patents, we and our partners may be required to pay damages, cease commercialization of the infringing technology, including our core CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology, or obtain a license from such third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Additionally, we have not performed any freedom-to-operate analysis on specific product candidates at this stage to identify potential infringement risks. A proper analysis of that type will not be feasible until specific product candidates are designed.

Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, ownership, or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing, and marketing any product candidates we may develop and our technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We also could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Intellectual Property Litigation Could Cause Us To Spend Substantial Resources And Distract Our Personnel From Their Normal Responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities and generally harm our business. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation in certain countries, including the United States, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

85

Some Intellectual Property Which 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 Manufacturers. Compliance With Such Regulations May Limit Our Exclusive Rights, And Limit Our Ability To Contract With Non-U.S. Manufacturers.

The intellectual property rights to which we have in-licensed under Dr. Charpentier’s joint interest are co-owned by California, which has indicated that one or more of the inventions were made under Grant No. GM081879 awarded by the National Institute of Health. These rights are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. The U.S. government has certain rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act, to patents covering government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program. These rights 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 contractor, 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 contractor 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 patents covering inventions is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

We May Not Be Able To Protect Our Intellectual Property And Proprietary Rights Throughout The World.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in intellectual property laws various jurisdictions worldwide. Additionally, the patent laws of some countries do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, unlike patent law in the United States, the patent law in Europe and many other jurisdictions precludes the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and imposes substantial restrictions on the scope of claims it will grant if broader than specifically disclosed embodiments.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions globally. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in various jurisdictions globally could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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

86

process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries.

Changes To The Patent Law In The United States And Other Jurisdictions Could Diminish The Value Of Patents In General, Thereby Impairing Our Ability To Protect Our Product Candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a “first to file” system. The first-to-file provisions, however, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not yet clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain patent protection for our inventions and increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” and invalidated Myriad Genetics’ claims on the isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Certain claims of our patents relate to CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology as well as guide components that are directed to naturally occurring DNA sequences. To the extent that such claims are deemed to be directed to natural products, or to lack an inventive concept above and beyond an isolated natural product, a court may decide the claims are invalid under Myriad. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to obtain patent protection for our proprietary technology or our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Europe’s planned Unified Patent Court may particularly present uncertainties for our ability to protect and enforce our patent rights against competitors in Europe. While that new court is being implemented to provide more certainty and efficiency to patent enforcement throughout Europe, it will also provide our competitors with a new forum to use to centrally revoke our European patents. It will be several years before we will understand the scope of patent rights that will be recognized and the strength of patent remedies that will be provided by that court. We will have the right to opt our patents out of that system over the first seven years of the court, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the new unified court.

Obtaining And Maintaining Our Patent Protection Depends On Compliance with Various Procedural, Document Submission, Fee Payment and Other Requirements Imposed by Governmental Patent Agencies, And Our Patent Protection Could be Reduced or Eliminated For Non-Compliance With These Requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. Although an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees, and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In any such event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If We Are Unable To Protect The Confidentiality Of Our Trade Secrets, Our Business And Competitive Position Would Be Harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology, and other proprietary and confidential information and to maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. In particular, we anticipate that with respect to our technology platform, these trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent

87

development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology, and the movement of personnel from academic to industry scientific positions.

We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect proprietary information. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, or misappropriation of our intellectual property by third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

If We Do Not Obtain Patent Term Extension And Data Exclusivity For Any Product Candidates We May Develop, Our Business May Be Materially Harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or if the term of any such extension is less than we request, we will be unable to rely on our patent position to forestall the marketing of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Intellectual Property Rights Do Not Necessarily Address All Potential Threats.

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

88

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

We May Be Subject To Claims That Our Employees, Consultants, Or Advisors Have Wrongfully Used Or Disclosed Confidential Information Of Their Current Or Former Employers Or Other Third Parties Or Claims Asserting Ownership Of What We Regard As Our Own Intellectual Property.

Many of our employees, consultants, and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer or other third party. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees.

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

If Our Trademarks Are Not Adequately Protected, Then We May Not Be Able To Build Name Recognition In Our Markets Of Interest And Our Business May Be Adversely Affected.

If our trademarks are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected. Our unregistered trademarks may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our unregistered trademarks. Over the long term, if we are unable to successfully register our trademarks and establish name recognition based on our trademarks, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely impact our financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to The Ownership of Our Common Shares

We Incur Significant Costs As A Result Of Operating As A Public Company And Our Management Is Required To Devote Substantial Time To Compliance Initiatives And Corporate Governance Practices.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. SOX, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Market, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time towards

89

maintaining compliance with these requirements. Moreover, these requirements increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Pursuant to SOX Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. In this regard, we incur substantial accounting expenses and expend significant management efforts.  Our testing may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies that we cannot remediate in a timely manner, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

The Market Price Of Our Common Shares Has Been Volatile and Fluctuate Substantially, Which Could Result In Substantial Losses For Shareholders.

Our share price has been, and in the future may be, subject to substantial volatility. In addition, the stock market in general, and Nasdaq listed biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. For example, our shares traded within a range of a high price of $181.42 and a low price of $11.63 per share for the period beginning on October 19, 2016, our first day of trading on the Nasdaq Global Market, through December 31, 2020. As a result of this volatility, our shareholders could incur substantial losses. In addition, the market price for our common shares may be influenced by many factors, including: