edit-20231231

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, the initiation, timing, progress and results of our preclinical and clinical studies and our research and development programs, the timing for our receipt and presentation of data from our clinical trials and preclinical studies, potential of, and expectations for, our product candidates, the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, our expectations regarding cash runway, and our business strategy, and other objectives for our operations. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. There are a number of important risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by forward-looking statements. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Part I that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments that we may make.

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 may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

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.

We are a clinical stage genome editing company dedicated to developing potentially transformative genomic medicines to treat a broad range of serious diseases. The promise of genomic medicines is supported by the advancing knowledge of the human genome and by harnessing the progress in technologies for cell therapy, gene therapy, and, most recently, gene editing. We believe this progress sets the stage for us to create medicines with the potential to have a durable benefit for patients. Our core capability in gene editing uses the technology known as CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats) to allow us to create molecules that efficiently and specifically edit DNA. Our mission is to translate the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable diseases.

We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform based on CRISPR technology and we continue to expand its capabilities. CRISPR uses a protein-RNA complex composed of an enzyme, including either Cas9 (CRISPR associated protein 9) or Cas12a (CRISPR from Prevotella and Francisella 1, also known as Cpf1), bound to a guide RNA molecule designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. Once the complex binds to the DNA sequence it is designed to recognize, the complex makes a specific cut in the DNA. We believe we are the only human genome editing company with a platform that includes CRISPR/Cas9, CRISPR/Cas12a, engineered forms of both of these CRISPR systems, and foundational intellectual property for both of these CRISPR systems. Because of the broad nature of this platform, we believe we can create gene editing molecules for over 95% of the human genome.

We seek to be a leader in in vivo programmable gene editing, leveraging cutting edge gene editing technology to deliver therapies that simplify the usability for patients, minimize the burdens to patients and healthcare systems, and are meaningfully differentiated from the current standards of care. To achieve this, we are focused on advancing gene editing medicines to treat hemoglobinopathies, beginning with the continued development of renizgamglogene autogedtemcel (“reni-cel”) (formerly known as EDIT-301) towards regulatory approval and commercialization, and leveraging the insights gained from this program to pursue next generation in vivo gene editing medicines targeting hematopoietic stem cells (“HSCs”). We are also pursuing the development of in vivo gene editing medicines for other organs and tissues that we believe will significantly differentiate our genome editing approach from the current standards of care for serious diseases. As part of these efforts, we are using strategic partnerships and collaborations and pursuing further opportunities to extend the reach of our intellectual property portfolio and access complementary technologies to expedite our drug discovery and clinical execution objectives.

Using our proprietary AsCas12a enzyme, we can efficiently and specifically edit HSCs, which we believe can lead to best-in-class medicines for hemoglobinopathies. Our lead program, reni-cel, is an experimental ex vivo gene-edited medicine to treat sickle cell disease (“SCD”), a severe inherited blood disease that causes premature death, and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (“TDT”), the most severe form of beta-thalassemia, an inherited blood disorder characterized by severe anemia. We are investigating reni-cel in a single Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial, referred to as the RUBY trial, for the treatment of severe SCD. In 2022, we dosed the first patient in the RUBY trial, and after completing sequential dosing of the first two patients, we commenced concurrent patient dosing in the first quarter of 2023. Through February 28, 2024, we have enrolled 40 patients and dosed 18 patients in the RUBY trial. We continue to enroll and dose patients in the adult cohort of the RUBY trial, with multiple patients scheduled for dosing in the second quarter of 2024. We have also initiated enrollment in the adolescent cohort.

In December 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) cleared our Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) for a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of reni-cel for the treatment of TDT, which we refer to as our EdiTHAL trial. We dosed the first patient in this trial in the first quarter of 2023 and commenced concurrent patient dosing in the second quarter of 2023. Through February 28, 2024, we have enrolled 9 patients and dosed 7 patients in the EdiTHAL trial, and we continue to enroll and dose patients.

and December 2022, supports our belief that reni-cel can be a clinically differentiated, one-time, durable medicine that can provide life-changing clinical benefits to patients with SCD and TDT, specifically driving early and robust correction of anemia and sustained increases in fetal hemoglobin. For additional information regarding these clinical data, please see “Business—Our Gene Editing Medicine Programs—Hemoglobinopathies.” We expect to provide further clinical data updates for both the RUBY and EdiTHAL trials in mid-2024 and by year-end 2024.

We believe that our unique editing approach, and the data to date from the RUBY trial, support potential differentiation of our reni-cel experimental medicine. The CRISPR nuclease used in the program is a proprietary high fidelity, highly specific, engineered AsCas12a enzyme for which we have exclusively licensed the foundational intellectual property to develop and commercialize human therapeutics. This enzyme has demonstrated high efficiency editing of multipotent long-term HSCs for sustained efficacy and durability. Its use to target the HBG1 and HBG2 promoters to mimic naturally occurring human mutations, analogous to patients with naturally occurring hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin, is potentially a more effective approach with better long-term safety than other editing targets and mechanisms. In particular, based on the clinical data to date from our reni-cel trials, in which we have seen correction of anemia, we believe that sustained, normal levels of total hemoglobin could be an important point of differentiation. Chronic anemia significantly reduces the quality of life in patients and is a risk factor for end organ damage.

We are also pursuing the development of next generation in vivo administered gene editing medicines, in which the medicine is injected or infused into the patient to edit the cells inside their body. Leveraging our differentiated approach from our reni-cel program, we are initially focused on editing HSCs through targeted delivery of our AsCas12a enzyme to our clinically validated HBG1 and HBG2 promotor site. The myeloablative busulfan conditioning regimen for HSC transplantation that is necessary for current gene editing therapies for SCD and TDT requires that patients undergo immunosuppression at the time of transplant and carries with it the long-term burdens of infertility and oncogenesis. By editing HSCs directly in patients without transplantation, no myeloablative conditioning is required, thereby avoiding the adverse effects associated with current HSC transplantation protocols. We believe such a product could be used in multiple different healthcare settings with a much lower burden on patients and treatment sites.

Beyond hemoglobinopathies, our discovery and development efforts are focused on in vivo gene editing medicines in other organs and tissues, with the goal of selecting therapeutic targets we believe have a significant probability of technical, clinical, regulatory, and commercial success. In 2023, we strengthened and focused our discovery organization to build an in vivo gene editing pipeline, and are on track to establish in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept for an undisclosed indication by year-end 2024.

In December 2023, we and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (“Vertex”) entered into a license agreement, under which Vertex obtained a non-exclusive license for our Cas9 gene editing technology for ex vivo gene editing medicines targeting the BCL11A gene in the fields of sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, including Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel). We received a $50.0 million upfront cash payment and are eligible to receive an additional $50.0 million contingent upfront payment. We are also eligible to receive annual license fees, ranging from $10.0 million to $40.0 million annually, inclusive of certain sales-based annual license fee increases, through 2034. We are required to pay The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) a mid-double-digit percentage of amounts received from Vertex under the license agreement as it relates to Cas9 technology licensed by us from Broad and Harvard.

In cellular therapy medicines, we are leveraging partnerships to progress engineered cell medicines to treat various cancers. We are advancing alpha-beta T-cell experimental medicines for the treatment of solid and liquid tumors in collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno Therapeutics”). This collaboration, which leverages our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies, has resulted in 13 total programs. We have also entered into a non-exclusive collaboration and licensing agreement with Immatics N.V. to combine gamma-delta T cell adoptive cell therapies and gene editing to develop medicines for the treatment of cancer.

Gene editing is the process of revising, removing, or repairing defective DNA in situ. In general, gene editing corrects the defective DNA in its native genomic location, and consequently the repaired genetic region retains the cell’s normal control and feedback mechanisms. Gene editing typically takes advantage of naturally occurring DNA repair mechanisms, including non-homologous end joining (“NHEJ”) and homology directed repair (“HDR”), to achieve its desired therapeutic outcome. Edits that are repaired by NHEJ typically disrupt a gene or eliminate a disease-causing mutation. Edits that are repaired by HDR, including targeted insertion, aim to correct or replace aberrant DNA sequences. The diversity of genetic drivers of disease demands a variety of solutions. Gene editing has the potential to deliver a variety of types of genome modification to address a broad range of diseases.

CRISPR technology uses a protein-RNA complex composed of a type of enzyme, referred to as a DNA endonuclease, bound to an RNA molecule, referred to as a guide RNA, that has been designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. A DNA endonuclease is an enzyme that cleaves DNA. This combination of a DNA endonuclease and a guide RNA only bind and cut DNA when two criteria are met: first, the protein recognizes a short DNA specific to the enzyme called the protospacer adjacent motif (“PAM”), and second, the appropriate portion of the guide RNA matches the adjacent DNA sequence. The PAM sequence that is recognized by the DNA endonuclease creates a second layer of recognition in addition to the guide RNA. We believe that CRISPR technology has three principal advantages for genome editing:

•Rapid, comprehensive, and systematic identification of product candidates. The key targeting mechanism for the endonuclease, whether it is Cas9 or Cas12a, is a guide RNA, which can be rapidly replaced with a different guide RNA or optimized by changes as small as a single nucleotide. This allows for the flexible design, synthesis, and testing of hundreds of guide RNA/endonuclease combinations for each genetic target in order to find those that cut the DNA target with the optimal efficiency and specificity. In contrast, other commonly used DNA nucleases for gene editing have inherently limited flexibility. For example, zinc finger nucleases, engineered meganucleases, and transcription activator-like effector nucleases use proteins for DNA sequence recognition to bring the endonuclease to the site of the genome where cleavage is desired, requiring the creation of an entirely new protein for each target site.

•Simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. In CRISPR technology, multiple guide RNAs can be provided along with the same endonuclease, enabling the simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. This ability to target multiple DNA sequences expands the applicability of CRISPR technology and also creates the potential for self-regulating systems that control exposure to the editing machinery. To address more than one target, other gene editing technologies require the engineering, characterization, manufacture, and delivery of distinct nuclease proteins for each target.

•Ability to achieve a range of different types of edits. The inherent differences in Cas9 and Cas12a and the availability of different engineered variants of both enzymes allow for different types of cuts for gene editing. We are able to make a blunt cut, cut either strand of the DNA, or create overhangs of differing length. This may be a critical component of improved HDR-driven approaches because the type of DNA cut can influence the type of repair mechanism used by a cell in response to that cut. We believe the ability to modify CRISPR technology to allow for different types of cuts will expand the potential of our gene editing platform.

We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform that includes different natural and engineered variants of Cas9 and Cas12a. We have characterized different Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes for several reasons. Firstly, a lower molecular weight enzyme will have advantages for delivering the endonuclease using a viral vector due to the inherent size limitations of most such delivery systems. For example, the Cas9 enzyme from SaCas9 is significantly smaller than that from Streptococcus pyogenes (“S. pyogenes” or “SpCas9”) (3,159 vs. 4,104 base pairs), and this decreased size is

important when working with adeno-associated viral vectors (“AAV”) as a delivery vector, which has an effective packaging limit of approximately 4,700 base pairs. Secondly, we have gained access to modified versions of Cas12a and Cas12a guide RNAs that increase Cas12a activity. This increased activity may allow us to use Cas12a editing in more indications where editing at a Cas12a susceptible site is desirable from a biological perspective but technically difficult with the wild-type Cas12a editing system. Reni-cel for SCD and TDT is one such example. Thirdly, identifying Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes with different editing properties will expand the number of potential editing sites in the human genome. The range of natural and engineered variants of Cas9 and Cas12a have significantly expanded the number of sites in the human genome that we can potentially target. As compared to the most commonly used, naturally occurring version of Cas9, from the bacterial species S. pyogenes, the range of endonucleases in our platform can target approximately ten times as many genomic sites. Thus, while the S. pyogenes Cas9 can target approximately 1 in 10 bases in the human genome, we have the potential to hit over 95% of all bases due to the wide range of endonucleases at our disposal.

The guide RNA molecule is another component of our gene editing platform. We have made substantial advances in the design, synthesis, modification, analysis, and characterization of guide RNAs. For example, in order to accelerate and standardize the selection of guide RNAs, we have created proprietary analytical software that supports guide RNA design through single nucleotide polymorphism analysis, specificity prediction, and assessment of relative importance of potential off target sites. Of critical importance in determining the activity and specificity of an endonuclease-guide RNA complex is understanding the quality and composition of the guide RNA. The ability to understand the quality and composition of the guide RNA is an essential component to developing product candidates that have the potential to be safe and efficacious medicines. In order to understand the absolute composition of our guide RNAs, we utilize state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and sequencing methodologies.

Our gene editing platform includes multiple modular delivery modes that can be efficiently adapted to deliver different CRISPR gene editing components to address the specific needs of each disease targeted. Our strategy is to leverage existing delivery technologies to target cell types of interest while developing next generation capabilities as warranted. We have developed a variety of delivery approaches, including electroporation for efficient delivery to blood cells ex vivo, lipid nanoparticles for non-viral in vivo delivery, and AAVs for in vivo viral delivery. We have made substantial advances in the ex vivo delivery of CRISPR systems to a number of cell types. We have been able to demonstrate greater than 90% ex vivo editing in HSCs using ribonucleoprotein complexes, which consist of the Cas9 or Cas12a endonuclease complexed with its guide RNA. These results are consistent across multiple cell donors and multiple target genes. In addition, we have taken advantage of the smaller S. aureus Cas9 and existing AAV technology to construct an “all-in-one” viral vector that is able to deliver the DNA coding for the nuclease protein and one or two guide RNAs directly to cells, which we believe has substantial advantages for manufacturing and delivery compared to approaches that rely on multiple vectors.

Our research and development efforts are focused on hemoglobinopathies and developing next generation in vivo medicines, including in vivo editing of HSCs and other organs and tissues. Our product development strategy is to target diseases where gene editing can be used to enable or enhance therapeutic outcomes for patients, while maximizing probability of technical, clinical, regulatory and commercial success. We believe the therapeutic programs and delivery technologies we have chosen to pursue to date and those that are currently under development will demonstrate the depth

Sickle cell disease is an inherited life-threatening hematological disorder, which starts to cause serious complications in early childhood. It affects millions of people worldwide, including approximately 100,000 people in the United States, and over 300,000 babies are born annually with SCD globally. Patients suffering from SCD can experience severe anemia and sickling-induced blood vessel blockages resulting in unpredictable and severe attacks of acute pain, stroke, acute chest syndrome, liver disease, renal failure, and a shortened life span. It is estimated that approximately 50% of patients with the most severe form of SCD die before 45 years of age. Advances in supportive care and disease modifying therapies have improved outcomes for patients with SCD, but curative therapies have been limited to allogeneic HSC transplantation. However, less than 20% of patients can find matched donors for this procedure and there is a risk of serious complications. Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia is also an inherited hematological disorder that often appears in infancy. It is relatively rare in the United States, affecting approximately 1,000 people, but is one of the most common autosomal recessive disorders in the world, found most often among individuals of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent. TDT is characterized by severe anemia, hemolysis, and severe ineffective erythropoiesis, often requiring patients to undergo regular, lifelong blood transfusions for survival.

We are actively pursuing a distinct gene editing approach to treating these hemoglobinopathies. Our desired attributes in reni-cel include rapid correction of anemia to normal physiological hemoglobin levels, fetal hemoglobin (“HbF”) levels in excess of 40%, a safety profile consistent with myeloablative busulfan conditioning and autologous hemopoietic or CD34+ stem cell transplant, and all treated SCD patients free of vaso-occlusive events (“VOEs”) and all treated TDT patients achieving transfusion independence. To this end, we have developed reni-cel, an experimental, autologous gene editing medicine that uses our novel AsCas12a gene editing nuclease to target the HBG1/2 promoter in human CD34+ cells and disrupt the binding site of the BCL11A, consistent with observed naturally occurring human mutations. These mutations mimic the asymptomatic condition of hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin (“HPFH”) with high levels of HbF in red blood cells. HbF levels greater than 30% are associated with a significant reduction in, or the absence of, SCD symptoms, particularly VOEs. By editing the HBG1/2 promoter in the beta-globin gene, we seek to generate protective changes that increase HbF production in a manner that is independent of erythropoietic stress, resulting in reduced sickling and VOEs in SCD patients, and resolving anemia and transfusion dependence in TDT patients. Reni-cel is the first experimental medicine in development generated using CRISPR/Cas12a (also known as Cpf1) gene editing.

reni-cel has the potential to impact beta-globin expression by increasing HbF and decreasing sickle globin. In particular, our preclinical data shows that editing the HBG1/2 promotor in human CD34+ cells results in greater red blood cell production, normal proliferative capacity, and improved red blood cell health when compared to editing the BCL11A erythroid enhancer (“BC11Ae”). Likewise, we believe our approach will reduce the sickle globin and, therefore, not have to compete for alpha globin in the same cell unlike lentiviral gene therapy approaches. Our preclinical studies identified the potential that BC11Ae might result in deleterious lineage skewing when editing the BCL11Ae locus. Finally, gene editing is more specific than lentiviral expression. To get the high levels of beta-globin required for an efficacious therapy, there will be cells in the CD34+ population, which are cells that contain the long-term stem cells that repopulate the hematopoietic lineages, that carry more than twenty copies of the viral genome. These random integration events have the potential to inadvertently activate or inactivate genes involved in cell function and tumorigenesis. As such, we believe our approach to editing the beta-globin locus provides the highest likelihood of providing clinical benefit in patients while minimizing potential safety risks.

In addition to our selection of the HBG1/2 promoter as our target, we believe that our use of AsCas12a, our proprietary, high-fidelity, high-specificity CRISPR nuclease, in reni-cel potentially provides patients with better clinical outcomes than those gene editing medicines using a Cas9 enzyme. AsCas12a has demonstrated superior characteristics that increase the efficiency of editing and significantly reduce off-target editing when compared to other CRISPR nucleases, including Cas9. When combined with our comprehensive off-target assessment, which uses multiple statistically independent methods, including in silico, biochemical, and cellular, followed by a verification of candidate sites, our use of the high-specificity AsCas12a enzyme should provide high editing efficiency and low off-target editing, thereby delivering on our desired attributes for reni-cel.

We also tested CD34+ cells obtained from sickle cell patients, which we edited at the beta-globin locus. These studies showed that editing was highly efficient and reproducible, with approximately 90% editing in multiple sickle patient donors. We found that reni-cel derived red blood cells had more than 50% HbF expression. Further, reni-cel derived red blood cells had a significant improvement in deformability, which could aid red blood cell transit without sickling, and a four-fold decrease in sickling, when subjected to reduced oxygen levels compared to unedited control cells. These data suggest reni-cel can provide potential clinical benefit for sickle patients. In vivo studies revealed editing was highly efficient with greater than 90% editing in bone marrow cells from mice infused with edited CD34+ cells 16 weeks post-infusion. In these mice, HbF expression was increased by approximately 50% in the red blood cells derived from these edited cells. We also observed that approximately 90% of these cells were HbF positive, demonstrating that HbF expression was pan-cellular, which we believe is likely a critical property for potential clinical benefit. For these reasons, we believe our approach of editing the hemoglobin locus to increase HbF has the potential to generate differentiated medicines to benefit patients with sickle cell disease and TDT.

We are investigating reni-cel in two ongoing single-arm, open-label, multi-center clinical trials that are designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of reni-cel in patients with severe SCD, the Phase 1/2/3 RUBY trial, and TDT, the Phase 1/2 EdiTHAL trial. Through February 28, 2024, we have enrolled 40 patients and dosed 18 patients in the RUBY trial. We continue to enroll and dose patients in the adult cohort of the RUBY trial, with multiple patients scheduled for dosing. We have also initiated enrollment in the adolescent cohort. Through February 28, 2024, we have enrolled 9 patients and dosed 7 patients in the EdiTHAL trial, and continue to enroll and dose patients.

None of the treated RUBY patients experienced any VOEs after reni-cel infusion and all remained VOE-free as of their last visit. The six patients with five or more months follow-up maintained a normal hemoglobin level and a fetal hemoglobin level of greater than 40%, above the 30% threshold considered clinically meaningful for the reduction or elimination of SCD symptoms, particularly VOEs. All 10 patients treated in the RUBY trial with more than one month of follow-up followed a similar trajectory of total hemoglobin and fetal hemoglobin increases.

The five patients with more than one month follow-up demonstrated early and robust total hemoglobin and fetal hemoglobin increases, with total hemoglobin rising above the transfusion independence threshold of 9 g/dL. The increased total hemoglobin level was driven by the rapid and robust increase of HbF expression. After reni-cel infusion, the mean HbF levels increased to 9.4 g/dL at month four and remained high over the follow-up period. These data show that hemoglobin and HbF fractions increase at a trajectory similar to RUBY patients at the same time points.

We seek to additionally develop targeted in vivo gene editing medicines, initially focused on HSCs but expanding to other organs and tissues in the future. The clinical data from our ex vivo reni-cel program demonstrated successful hemoglobin induction, creating a foundation for development of in vivo HSC gene editing medicines. We believe that the ability to edit HSCs directly in patients without transplantation will allow the treatment of larger patient populations due to the elimination of the current myeloablative conditioning requirement, enabling access to such a product across health systems with a lower burden on patients and treatment centers. In 2023, we strengthened and focused our discovery organization to build an in vivo gene editing pipeline, and are on track to establish in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept for an undisclosed indication by year-end 2024.

We are focused on driving solutions for people living with serious, previously untreatable diseases by leveraging our gene editing platform – in the form of developing our own clinically differentiated medicines and in the form of licenses and sublicenses to other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing medicines. Strategic partnerships are a key component of our strategy, allowing us to access capabilities and resources in support of our therapeutic programs. Further, as the exclusive licensee of Broad’s Cas12a patent estate and Broad and Harvard’s Cas9 patent estates for human medicines, we actively seek opportunities to out-license and partner our robust intellectual property portfolio to accelerate the development and commercialization of CRISPR/Cas9- and Cas12a-based products in multiple therapeutic areas.

We have, and continue to seek, parties for exclusive and non-exclusive licenses to expand the reach of our foundational intellectual property and enable the development of transformative medicines for a broader patient population. Examples of these licensing efforts include our non-exclusive license to Vor for the development of ex vivo Cas9 gene-edited HSC therapies for the treatment and/or prevention of hematological malignancies; our non-exclusive license to Vertex for our Cas9 gene editing technology for ex vivo gene editing medicines targeting the BCL11A gene in the fields of SCD and TDT, including Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel); and our non-exclusive license to Immatics N.V. of our AsCas12a technology to advance gamma-delta T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer.

In our collaboration with BMS, we are researching and developing engineered alpha-beta T cell therapies to treat solid and liquid tumors leveraging our platform technologies, including Cas9 and AsCas12a. Engineered T cells, including alpha-beta T cells, have shown encouraging clinical activity against multiple cancers, culminating in recent approvals of such therapies in the United States. Because of these promising results, there is significant interest in the medical community in expanding the application of this technology across a broader range of cancers and patients. We believe that our genome editing technology has the potential to improve multiple properties of these alpha-beta T cell therapies. Alpha-beta cells are part of the adaptive immune system and recognize tumors with endogenous alpha-beta T cell receptors or CARs or engineered T cell receptors (“eTCRs”). If we are successful, genome-edited engineered alpha-beta T cells have the potential to significantly expand the types of cancers treatable by CAR/ eTCR alpha-beta T cells and to improve the outcomes of these therapies. Through our collaboration with BMS, we have applied our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies to multiple gene targets in order to improve the efficacy and safety of CAR/eTCR alpha-beta T cells directed against a range of tumor types. In addition, we have optimized genome editing components and delivery methods compatible with engineered alpha-beta T cell manufacturing methods developed by BMS. To date, this collaboration has resulted in 13 total programs.

In May 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Juno Therapeutics, a subsidiary of BMS, for the research and development of engineered T cells with CARs and eTCRs that have been genetically modified to recognize and kill other cells. We and BMS amended and restated this agreement in May 2018 and November 2019 (the “BMS Collaboration Agreement”) and, in connection with the amendment and restatement in November 2019, we entered into a license agreement with BMS (such agreement, the “BMS License Agreement,” and together with the BMS Collaboration Agreement, the “BMS Agreements”). Under the terms of the BMS Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $25.0 million, amendment fees totaling $75.0 million and have received milestone payments totaling $20.0 million, in addition to certain opt-in fees.

The BMS Agreements relate to technology used to edit or modify the genome of a cell in connection with the research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of T cells that express or have ever expressed T cell receptor dimers consisting of an alpha (α) chain and a beta (β) chain (such cells, “Alpha-beta T Cells”), and T cells derived from pluripotent stem cells or any other precursor cell (such cells, “Other Derived T Cells”), subject to certain exclusions for certain of our existing obligations. The exploitation of Alpha-beta T Cells and Other Derived T Cells specifically excludes the exploitation of T Cells that express a T cell receptor dimer consisting of a gamma (γ) chain and a delta (δ) chain, which we refer to as gamma-delta T Cells.

Under the BMS Collaboration Agreement, if BMS elects to opt-in with respect to a Research Program, it shall make a mid-six digit dollar payment to us and we shall amend the BMS License Agreement to include such Research Program by executing a licensed program addendum for such Research Program. Following BMS’ opt-in for each program we shall grant to BMS an exclusive (even as to us), royalty-bearing worldwide right and license under specified intellectual property rights to research, develop, manufacture commercialize or otherwise exploit the RNP Complexes in such Research Program to create products containing, incorporating, comprising or containing Alpha-beta T Cells and/or Other Derived T Cells, in each case modified using the RNP Complexes in such Research Program (each, a “BMS Licensed Product”).

We are entitled to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentage royalties on net sales made by BMS, its affiliates and sublicensees of any BMS Licensed Products, subject to reductions in certain circumstances. We are also entitled to receive development milestones totaling up to $135.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain clinical milestones and specified regulatory approvals and commercial milestone payments totaling up to $60.0 million in the aggregate for each of the first two BMS Licensed Products to achieve specified net sales milestones.

We have agreed during the term of the BMS Collaboration Agreement not to use (directly or indirectly), or license others to use, genome editing technology in connection with any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of any Alpha-beta T Cells or Other Derived T Cells. Our exclusivity obligation will not apply to activities related to (i) any identified RNP Complexes in a program for which BMS elects not to exercise its opt-in right, (ii) certain of our existing obligations to third parties, and (iii) certain existing programs of an acquiror of our company in a change of control.

The BMS Collaboration Agreement continues in effect until the later of expiration of the research term or expiration of the last to expire of BMS’ right to opt-in with respect to any Research Program. BMS may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement in its discretion upon six months’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party.

The BMS License Agreement continues in effect on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the royalty term with respect to such licensed product in such country and in its entirety upon the expiration of all royalty terms with respect to all BMS Licensed Products in all countries. BMS may terminate the BMS License Agreement in its entirety or on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product basis in its discretion upon ninety days’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS License Agreement on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product basis in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party. We have the right to terminate the BMS License Agreement on a program-by-program basis in the event that BMS fails to make any undisputed payment to us and has not cured such payment breach within the cure period. Other than BMS’ right to wind-down its operations with respect to BMS Licensed Products during the twelve months following the date of effectiveness of termination, all licenses and other exclusive rights granted under the BMS License Agreement shall terminate.

In October 2014, we entered into a license agreement with Broad and Harvard for specified patent rights. In December 2016, we amended and restated this license agreement and further amended the agreement in March 2017 and February 2024 (as amended, the “Cas9-I License Agreement”). Among other things, the Cas9-I License Agreement amended the original license agreement by excluding additional fields from the scope of the exclusive license granted to us; converting the exclusive license to three specified targets to a non-exclusive license, subject to specified limitations; revising certain provisions relating to the rights of Harvard and Broad to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license; and providing Harvard and Broad with certain rights to designate, and reserve all rights to, gene targets for which the designating institution has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us. The licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement include rights to certain patents solely owned by Harvard (the “Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights”), certain patents co-owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Broad, certain patents co-owned by MIT, The Rockefeller University (“Rockefeller”), and Broad, and certain patents co-owned by MIT, Broad and Harvard. We refer to all the patents and patent applications licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement as the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights.

Certain patent applications in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are jointly owned by Rockefeller. In February 2017, Broad and Rockefeller entered into an inter-institutional agreement pursuant to which Rockefeller authorized Broad to act as its sole and exclusive agent for the purposes of licensing Rockefeller’s rights in such Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and any additional related patents or patent applications that Rockefeller may jointly own with Broad. The March 2017 amendment to the Cas9-I License Agreement included a license to Rockefeller’s rights in such patents and patent applications.

The Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are directed, in part, to certain CRISPR/Cas9 compositions of matter and their use for genome editing and to certain CRISPR/Cas9 related delivery technologies. Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, and as of December 31, 2023, we have certain rights under 74 U.S. patents, 54 pending U.S. patent applications, 35 European patents and related validations, 31 pending European patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States and Europe.

Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, have sold, import, and export products and services in the field of the prevention and treatment of human disease, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The exclusive license granted by Broad and Harvard excludes certain fields, including the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans; the research, development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications; plant-based agricultural products; and, subject to certain limitations, products providing nutritional benefits. Moreover, the license granted by Broad is non-exclusive with respect to the treatment of medullary cystic kidney disease 1 and three other specified targets, subject to the limitation that for such three targets, each of Broad and Harvard is only permitted to grant a non-exclusive license to one third party at a time with respect to each such target within the field of exclusive license granted to us. Harvard and Broad also granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for all purposes, with the exception that the non-exclusive license to certain Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights excludes the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans and the development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications. In addition to the exclusions described above, the following are excluded from the scope of both the exclusive and non-exclusive licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement: human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.

The licenses granted by Broad and Harvard to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and the rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for research, educational, or teaching purposes. In addition, certain rights granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are further subject to a non-exclusive license to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for research purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.

We have the right to sublicense our licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cas9-I License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad and Harvard. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify Harvard, Broad, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute according to the same terms as are provided in the Cas9-I License Agreement and a statement that Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.

Under the agreement, Harvard and Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties, other than specified entities, that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Harvard and Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Harvard and Broad under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad may notify us of the request (the “Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests”). Our process to address Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests has been conformed to the same process established in our Cpf1 license agreement described below.

The Cas9-I License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, after a specified period of time and subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with an affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cas9-I License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target and our license granted with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cas9-I License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to that gene target.

Under the Cas9-I License Agreement, we paid Broad and Harvard an upfront license fee in the low six figures and issued a single-digit percentage of shares of our common stock to Broad (with Broad holding a right to request re-issuance to its designees, including MIT or MIT’s designee) and Harvard. We also must pay an annual license maintenance fee ranging from the low- to mid-five figures to the low-six figures, depending on the calendar year. This annual license maintenance fee is creditable against royalties owed on licensed products and services in the same year as the maintenance fee is paid. We are obligated to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, including expenses associated with any interference proceedings in the USPTO, any opposition proceedings in the EPO, or any other inter partes or other post grant proceedings in these or other jurisdictions where we are seeking patent protection. Therefore, we are obligated to reimburse Broad and/or Harvard for expenses associated with the interference and opposition proceedings involving patents licensed to us under this agreement (described in more detail under “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property—Some of Our In-Licensed Patents are Subject to Priority and Validity Disputes” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K).

Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $14.8 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement, these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $4.1 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States and at least one jurisdiction outside the United States for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts fewer than a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States or a specified number of patients per year in the United States, which we refer to as an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.

Broad and Harvard, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from low single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other licensed products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the licensed product and licensed service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our licensed products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Harvard and Broad in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights that cover the composition, manufacture, or use of each covered product or service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the licensed product or licensed service. If we sublicense any of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to a third party pursuant to our exclusive license under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Broad and Harvard, collectively, had the right to receive a low double-digit percentage of the sublicense income, which percentage decreased in 2018 and may still decrease to a high single-digit percentage for licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease under sublicenses executed after we meet a certain clinical milestone.

Broad and Harvard retain control of the prosecution of their respective patent rights. If an interference is declared or a derivation proceeding is initiated, with respect to any Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, then our prosecution related rights, including our right to receive correspondence from a patent office, will be suspended with respect to the patent rights involved in the interference or derivation proceeding until, under some circumstances, we enter into a common interest agreement with that institution. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for the cost of such interference or derivation proceeding. We are responsible for the cost of the interference proceeding and appeal with respect to these patents and this patent application. Broad and Harvard are required to maintain any application or patent within the Harvard/Broad Patents Rights so long as we meet our obligation to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses related to prosecution and there is a good faith basis for doing so. If we cease payment for the prosecution of any Harvard/Broad Patent Right, then any license granted to us with respect to such Harvard/Broad Patent Right will terminate.

We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and Harvard with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad and Harvard (and MIT and Rockefeller, if applicable). Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between us, Broad, and Harvard.

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad and Harvard. Broad and Harvard may terminate the agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of our uncured material breach, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Both Broad and Harvard may terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Harvard/Broad Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency. Neither Broad nor Harvard acting alone has the right to terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement. However, Broad and Harvard may separately terminate the licenses granted to us with respect to their

In December 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Broad, for specified patent rights (“Cpf1 Patent Rights”) related primarily to Cas12a compositions of matter and their use for gene editing, which was amended in January 2021 and February 2024 (as amended, the “Cpf1 License Agreement”). Pursuant to the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad, on behalf of itself, Harvard, MIT, Wageningen University (“Wageningen”), and the University of Tokyo (“Tokyo” and collectively with the other institutions, the “Cpf1 Institutions”) granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights, to make, have made, use, have used, sell, offer for sale, have sold, export and import products solely in the field of the prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy, editing of genetic material, or targeting of genetic material, subject to certain limitations and retained rights (collectively, the “Exclusive Cpf1 Field”), as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights for all other purposes, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement exclude certain fields, including human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.

Tokyo and the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) are joint owners on certain Cpf1 Patent Rights. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not, and does not purport to, grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field. We are also required to achieve certain development milestones within specified time periods for products covered by the Cpf1 Patent Rights, with Broad having the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement if we fail to achieve these milestones within the required time periods. We have the right to sublicense our licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cpf1 License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify the Cpf1 Institutions according to the same terms as are provided in the Cpf1 License Agreement and a statement that the Cpf1 Institutions are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.

The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Cpf1 Patent Rights and rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Cpf1 Patent Rights for research, teaching, or educational purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions for themselves and any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Cpf1 Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.

Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Cpf1 Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Broad (a “Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request”), Broad may notify us of such request. A Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request must be accompanied by a research, development and commercialization plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, including evidence that the third party has, or reasonably expects to have, access to any necessary intellectual property and funding. Broad may not grant a Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request (i) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators are researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed to the same gene target that is the subject of the Cpf1Third Party Proposed Product Request (“Cpf1 Licensee

Product”) and we can demonstrate such ongoing efforts to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction, or (ii) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates or sublicensees, wish to do so either alone or with a collaboration partner, and we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product nor able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad may grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license to the third party on a gene target-by-gene target basis.

The Cpf1 License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with a Cpf1 Institution, affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cpf1 License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target, our license with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cpf1 License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target.

Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, we paid Broad and Wageningen an aggregate upfront license fee in the mid seven digits and issued to Broad and Wageningen promissory notes (the “Initial Promissory Notes”) in an aggregate principal amount of $10.0 million, which we settled in full in 2017. Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $20.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement, certain of these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $6.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.

Broad and Wageningen, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from sub single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the product and service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Cpf1 Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Broad and Wageningen in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights that covers each licensed product or licensed service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the product or service. If we sublicense any of the Cpf1 Patent Rights to a third party, Broad and Wageningen, collectively, had the right to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentages of the sublicense income, which percentage decreased to a high single-digit percentage in 2022 for sublicenses executed thereafter.

Success Payments are payable by us in cash, in shares of our common stock, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, or in the form of promissory notes (the “Promissory Notes”). The Promissory Notes bear interest at 4.8% per annum. Principal and interest on the Promissory Notes are payable on, subject to certain exceptions, 150 days following issuance (or if earlier, a specified period of time following a sale of our company). We could elect to make any payment of amounts outstanding under the Promissory Notes either in the form of cash or, subject to certain conditions, in shares of our common stock of equal value, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. In the event of a change of control of our company or a sale of our company, we are required to pay all remaining principal and accrued interest on the Promissory Notes in cash within a specified period following such event. Following a change in control of our company, Market Cap Success Payments are required to be made in cash. Company Sale Success Payments are payable solely in cash. In 2017, two Market Cap Success Payments of $5.0 million each became due and payable and we issued Promissory Notes in such amounts, which we fully settled by issuing shares of our common stock in 2017 and 2018. In December 2020, an additional Market Cap Success Payment of $15.0 million became due and payable, which we settled through the issuance of shares of our common stock in January 2021. The remaining Success Payments that may be paid to Broad and Wageningen range from a low-eight digit dollar amount to a mid-eight digit dollar amount, and collectively will not exceed, in aggregate, $100.0 million, which maximum would be payable only if we achieve a market capitalization threshold of $10.0 billion and have at least one product candidate covered by a claim of a patent right licensed to us under either the Cpf1 License Agreement or the Cas9-I License Agreement that is or was the subject of a clinical trial pursuant to development efforts by us or any of our affiliates or sublicensees.

In addition, in the event that a sale of our company or change of control has occurred and the maximum amount of potential Success Payments under the Cpf1 License Agreement has not been paid to Broad and Wageningen, Broad and Wageningen are entitled to receive, upon the subsequent achievement of specified regulatory milestones, percentages ranging from high single digits to mid-to-low double digits of the remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments. Broad and Wageningen are further entitled to receive up to the full remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments upon the subsequent achievement of specified sales milestones. All such post-sale or post-change of control milestone payments are required to be made in cash.

Broad retains control of the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights. We have the right to provide input in the prosecution of the Cpf1 Patent Rights, including to direct Broad to file and prosecute patents in certain countries. We are also obligated to reimburse Broad and Wageningen for all unreimbursed expenses incurred by them in connection with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights prior to the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement, and to reimburse Broad for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights following the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement.

We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Cpf1 Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and the applicable Cpf1 Institutions with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad. Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between Broad, Wageningen, and us.

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad. Either party may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach of a material obligation, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Broad may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Cpf1 Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency.

Sponsored Research Agreement with Broad providing for Broad to conduct research useful or relevant to genome editing in the field of genomic medicines for the prevention of treatment of human diseases with funding from us, which was amended in January 2021 (as amended, the “Sponsored Research Agreement”). Under the Cas9-II Agreement and the Sponsored Research Agreement, we have potential obligations with respect to success payments, which are described in Note 8 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our platform technology, programs, and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our platform technology, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by 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.

Our in-licensed patents and patent applications cover various aspects of our genome editing platform technology, including CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases and Cas9 PAM variants, self-inactivating forms of Cas9, Cas9 nickases, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs, including guide nucleic acids containing both DNA and RNA components. We also have filed patent applications and have in-licensed rights to filed patent applications directed to each of the four components of our genome editing platform technology. We intend to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use, and process claims, directed to each component of our platform technology. We also intend to obtain rights to existing delivery technologies through one or more licenses from third parties.

Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Moreover, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug or a method for using it may be extended.

As of December 31, 2023, we owned 31 U.S. patents, 74 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 16 European patents and related validations, 62 pending European patent applications, four pending U.S. provisional patent applications, nine pending PCT patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology and which include claims directed to our genome editing platform, including our directed editing component, as well as composition of matter and method of use claims for our

therapeutic programs. Four of these U.S. patents, one of these European patents and their U.S., European and foreign counterpart applications are co-owned with Broad and Iowa and we have obtained an exclusive license to such co-ownership rights from these third parties in the field of prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy or genome editing. In addition, five of these issued U.S. patents and 12 of these pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications are co-owned with certain of our collaborators because they encompass inventions developed under our collaborations. Our current issued U.S. patents, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2034 and 2038, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2034 and 2044, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

As of December 31, 2023, we in-licensed 125 U.S. patents, 59 European patents and related validations, and approximately 420 pending patent applications, including 87 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 58 pending European patent applications, and other related patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology collectively from various universities and institutions. The patents and patent applications outside of the United States and Europe are held primarily in Canada, Japan, and Australia, although some of our in-licensed patent families were filed in a larger number of countries. The claims from our in-licensed portfolio include claims to compositions of matter, methods of use, and certain processes.

These include claims directed to CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including Cas9 nickases, S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases, Cas9 PAM variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas9, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs. Our current in-licensed U.S. patents, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2033 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2033 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

Our in-licensed patents and patent applications claim the inventions of investigators at various universities and institutions and the majority of these licensed patents and patent applications are licensed on an exclusive basis. The exclusive licenses are, in some cases, limited to certain technical fields. Certain U.S. patent applications licensed to us by Broad include Tokyo and NIH as joint applicants. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not and does not purport to grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof. For more information regarding these license agreements, please see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “Business —Intellectual Property Licenses.”

As of December 31, 2023, our registered trademark portfolio consisted of registrations in the United States for EDITAS, EDITAS in Stylized Letters and the Infinity Logo, registrations in Australia, China, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for EDITAS, registrations in Australia, China, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for the Infinity Logo, registrations in the European Union and United Kingdom for UDITAS, registrations in Australia, China, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for SLEEK, and registrations in Australia, China, the European Union and United Kingdom for the Double Helix Design.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy, genome editing 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 face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology companies, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies may become available in the future.

additional companies that are working to develop therapies in areas related to our research programs. For example, in late 2023 and early 2024, the FDA approved Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel), a Cas9 genome-edited cell medicine, for the treatment of SCD and TDT. The FDA also approved in late 2023 bluebird bio’s LYFGENIATM (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), a cell-based gene therapy, for the treatment of SCD. If reni-cel is approved for marketing, these therapies will be directly competitive with reni-cel. Our platform and product focus is the development of therapies using CRISPR technology specifically for genome editing. Other companies developing CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology or therapies using CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology include Artisan Bio, AvenCell Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, EdiGene, ERS Genomics, Excision Biotherapeutics, Inscripta, Intellia Therapeutics, Kamau Therapeutics, Sigma-Aldrich, and ToolGen. In addition, there have been and may continue to be discoveries of new CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. There are additional companies developing therapies using related CRISPR genome editing technologies, including other CRISPR nucleases, base editing, prime editing and gene writing. These companies include Amber Bio, Arbor Biotechnologies, Beam Therapeutics, Chroma Medicine, Emendo Biotherapeutics, Epic Bio, Integra Therapeutics, KSQ Therapeutics, Locus Biosciences, Mammoth Biosciences, Metagenomi, Poseida Therapeutics, Prime Medicine, Scribe Therapeutics, Tessera Therapeutics, Tome Biosciences, Tune Therapeutics, and Verve Therapeutics. There are also companies developing therapies using transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, Mega-TALs and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include 2Seventy Bio, Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, Precision Biosciences, and Sangamo Therapeutics.

In addition, many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, may have greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, 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 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. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, and availability of reimbursement.

We currently perform some manufacturing activities such as the production of RNP Complexes for our various internal programs, as well as cell processing for reni-cel, and may also agree to produce RNP Complexes for our partners. These activities are performed on site at our existing facilities or at current good manufacturing practice-compliant space leased by us. In June 2023, we entered into a multi-year agreement to increase our clean room capacity and move our current cell processing activities for reni-cel to a new third-party facility. We expect to occupy this facility in the first half of 2024. This new facility and increased capacity will support the scaling of our reni-cel program, including manufacturing clinical supply for the RUBY and EdiTHAL trials and preparing us for commercial readiness. We contract with third parties for the manufacturing of our other materials for preclinical studies and our clinical trials, including gene editing materials for IND-supporting activities and early-stage clinical trials. We have limited manufacturing operations and do not own or operate any substantial manufacturing facilities for large-scale production of our program materials. While we have limited clinical manufacturing capabilities, at the appropriate time in the product development process of each product candidate, we will determine whether to expand our internal manufacturing capabilities or rely on third parties to manufacture commercial quantities of any products that we may successfully develop and have approved. The use of

contracted manufacturing and reliance on collaboration partners is relatively cost-efficient and has eliminated the need for substantial direct investment in manufacturing facilities and additional staff. Although we rely on contract manufacturers for certain materials, we have personnel with manufacturing experience to oversee our contract manufacturers. We expect third-party manufacturers to be capable of providing sufficient quantities of our program materials to meet anticipated needs for preclinical studies and clinical trials. To meet our projected needs for commercial manufacturing, third parties with whom we currently work might need to increase their scale of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers. We believe that there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our preclinical, clinical, and commercial requirements, although we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships with such sources, if necessary, would not result in significant delay or material additional costs.

We currently intend to build the commercial infrastructure in the United States necessary to effectively support the commercialization of our programs, if and when we first believe a regulatory approval of a product candidate under one of our programs in a particular geographic market appears probable. In Europe and elsewhere outside of the United States, 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. In September 2023, we announced the strengthening of our executive team with the appointment of Caren Deardorf as our first Chief Commercial and Strategy Officer. Ms. Deardorf will build and lead our commercial organization, strategy, and execution to support all launch, commercialization, and lifecycle management activities of our current product candidates and our future pipeline of product candidates.

The commercial infrastructure for orphan products typically consists of a targeted, specialty sales force that calls on a limited and focused group of physicians supported by sales management, medical liaisons, internal sales support, an internal marketing group, and distribution support. Additional capabilities important to the orphan marketplace include the management of key accounts such as managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations, specialty pharmacies, and government accounts. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure, we will have to invest significant amounts of financial and management resources, some of which will be committed prior to any confirmation that any product candidate we may develop will be approved.

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

In the United States, our candidate products would be regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations and guidances. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and their approval by regulatory authorities, is generally referred to as a sponsor. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject a sponsor to delays in the conduct of the study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.

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 animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. 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.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical studies in a timely manner.

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests, it must make that policy publicly available. Although these requirements were rolled out over time, they have now come into full effect. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

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. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the FDA requires that such trials be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and informed consent from subjects. The

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. These reports must include a development safety update report (“DSUR”). In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

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 (“DSMB”). This group may recommend continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated check points based on certain available data from the study to which only the DSMB has access. 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 in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules.

•Phase 3 clinical trials may proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a biologic; such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. 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. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.

In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017, and both NIH and the FDA have signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, FDA has issued pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues.

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, a sponsor is given the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product. A type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues and should not require input from more than 3 disciplines or Divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (“PREA”), 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 sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, 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 sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

For products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, 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. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The FDA is required to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

It is possible that the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any CRISPR product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point. The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and which are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms. 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 (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products. Within the CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Cellular Therapeutic Products, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. The NIH, including its Novel and Exceptional Technology Research Advisory Committee (“NExTRAC”), also advises the FDA on gene therapy issues and other issues related to emerging biotechnologies. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols.

The FDA has issued numerous guidance documents regarding gene therapies. Although the FDA has indicated that these and other guidance documents it previously issued are not legally binding, compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any gene therapy product candidate. 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 for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.

For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with GTP. These standards are found in FDA regulations and guidances 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 (“HCT/Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP 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.

register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.

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 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. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is approximately $4.05 million for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of a licensed BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2024 is more than $415,000. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File (“RTF”) determination to the sponsor.

On the other hand, 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 PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the sponsor, 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 sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with a BLA submission, including component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

In connection with its review of a BLA, the FDA may 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.

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 non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter ("CRL"). To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the investigational product is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety, purity and potency in the BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks.

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 CRL, 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 CRL 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 a sponsor 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 CRL have been addressed.

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 (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. 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, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

•Fast Track designation: Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

•Breakthrough Therapy designation. To qualify for the Breakthrough Therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive

•Accelerated approval. Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening conditions and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

With passage of FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed; and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval.

•Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to 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 candidate 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 the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to Breakthrough Therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including 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.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic.

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act (the “PIE Act”) in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

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.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. In particular, the concept of what constitutes the “same drug” for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA has recently issued guidance indicating it would consider two gene therapy products for the same indication to be different, thus each eligible for orphan drug exclusivity, if they express different transgenes or have or use different vectors, so long as those differences are not “minor.” The FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing sameness. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

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.

In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.

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.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”). The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” To date, the FDA has approved both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product.

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. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products.

A patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 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 the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. 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.

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the drug therapeutic and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.

The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.

a specific group of therapeutic products, the companion diagnostic’s intended use/indications for use should name the specific group of therapeutic products, rather than specific products. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)).

Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval (“PMA”) simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2024, the standard fee is $483,560 and the small business fee is $120,890.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.

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, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union (“EU Member State”) will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Beyond streamlining the process, the new regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted, which we refer to as the Member States concerned. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”).

The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Sponsors developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) with the EMA’s pediatric committee (“PDCO”), and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date.

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under the European Union regulatory system, a sponsor must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in European Union Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, a sponsor must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved 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 EU Member States. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Manufacturers must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, 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 1394/2007/EC 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 EMA which provides an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

The grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for gene therapy products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, 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 1394/2007/EC includes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

In the European Union, new chemical entities approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product

can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the drug on the European Union (“EU”) market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended.

In the E.U., similar political, economic and regulatory developments to those in the United States may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the U.S. and the E.U., reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the E.U., the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, pharmaceutical firms may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of the product to other available therapies.

Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the sponsor must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity.

Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining an SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. These periods can be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.

The United Kingdom’s (“UK”) withdrawal from the EU took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “Agreement”), which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the EU and the UK will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes, except that Northern Ireland will continue to broadly follow EU laws as further described below. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the UK is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain (“GB”), comprising England, Scotland, and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol.

On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework”. This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., GB and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the UK government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law. On June 9, 2023, the MHRA announced that the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework will apply from January 1, 2025. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended) (“HMR”) is the primary legal instrument for the regulation of medicines in the UK The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval, and commercialization of our product candidates in the UK For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide MAs from the EMA, and a separate MA will be required to market our product candidates in the UK A new international recognition framework has been in place since January 1, 2024, whereby the MHRA will have regard to decisions on the approval of MAs made by the EMA and certain other regulators when determining an application for a new GB MA.

Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors.

The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR.

Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Union initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022 and the European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision will permit U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms.

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. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and

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 federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any 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) 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 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 amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the 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.

•the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

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. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (the “CAA”), which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the CAA delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The CAA’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action seeking to strike down the ACA after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021.

In addition, the HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”) to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at 2,000 a year.

On June 6, 2023, Merck filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”), Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under HIPAA, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information (“PHI”) used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them.

Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the GDPR, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.

In addition to California, at least eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2023 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2024 and beyond, including New Hampshire and New Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law in 2023 that will regulate the collection and sharing of health

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

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.

As of February 1, 2024, we had 265 full-time employees, including 46 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 130 employees are primarily engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We anticipate that we will increase headcount in our manufacturing and clinical organizations as we progress the clinical development of reni-cel toward regulatory approval and commercialization, and in our research organization to support the advancement of our in vivo product pipeline.

At Editas, we seek to unlock the full potential of gene editing technology, and we recognize that our success is driven by our dynamic, passionate and diverse team. We work together with integrity, guided by our distinct culture, to develop transformative medicines for people living with serious diseases around the world. At the center of our culture are our core values, which guide and define the behaviors that make our culture unique and enable us to bring our best selves forward to achieve our mission of translating the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable diseases:

We strongly believe that our greatest strength comes from the people who make up our team. Each employee brings diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and thinking styles, and when we champion belonging, inclusivity, diversity, and equity (“BIDE”), we cultivate a culture where every individual feels valued and included. Our commitment to embracing and celebrating our differences fuels our drive to excel in scientific innovation, allowing us to harness the power of gene editing to develop groundbreaking and life-changing therapies for people living with serious diseases with the greatest unmet needs.

We have cultivated a diverse and inclusive workforce, including in our senior management team, to ensure an environment where employees feel empowered to achieve their fullest potential. As of December 31, 2023, approximately 53% of our full-time employees were women and 48% of our senior management (director level and above) were women. As of December 31, 2023, approximately 57% of our full-time employees identify as racially/ethnically diverse and 53% of our senior management identify as racially/ethnically diverse.

In furtherance of our efforts to strengthen our corporate culture, in 2023 we created a team of employees from varying levels across all functions of our organization to review and develop executable plans for the continued progress of our cultural mission. This team, referred to as the BIDE team, conducted an extensive review of corporate culture best practices, participated in cross-industry discussions, and engaged with our employees, including through surveys and focus group interviews, to develop a set of recommendations to support our commitment to belonging, inclusion, diversity, and equity. These recommendations, which will begin to be implemented in 2024, include the establishment of a BIDE Council to oversee our cultural development efforts, the launch of a BIDE campaign to facilitate related communications, the development of related training and education programs, and the formalization of internal metrics and benchmarking to ensure we are achieving our cultural goals.

Successful execution of our strategy is dependent on attracting, retaining and motivating a diverse team of highly skilled employees at all levels. We believe a key component of recruiting, retaining and motivating our employees is our total compensation package. For this reason, we provide employees with competitive compensation, including market-competitive salary and equity awards, along with competitive benefits packages, including medical, dental, vision and life insurance, an employee stock purchase plan, flexible spending accounts, short- and long-term disability and matching contributions to a 401(k) tax-deferred savings plan. We also provide annual cash incentive bonus opportunities that are tied to both company performance and individual performance to foster a pay-for-performance culture. We regularly benchmark these total rewards against our industry peers to ensure we remain competitive and attractive to potential new hires.

We believe that continued learning and development, training and other resources are also an essential part of retaining our employees and creating a culture of learning and leadership. We encourage our employees to participate and take advantage of a variety of learning and development resources, including online skills courses, professional development events, and external training programs based on individual needs. We have also implemented formal coaching and mentoring programs, which enable employees to connect with, and learn and develop from, individuals across our company.

We maintain an internet website at www.editasmedicine.com and make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors & Media,” as a source of information about us.

Our business is subject to numerous risks. The following important factors, among others, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), press releases, communications with investors, and oral statements. Actual future results may differ materially from those anticipated in our forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $153.2 million, $220.4 million, and $192.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.23 billion. We have financed our operations primarily through public offerings of our common stock, our collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno Therapeutics”), and payments under our former strategic alliance with Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited (together with its affiliates, “Allergan”). We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable

We continue to progress the clinical development of reni-cel, but it may be years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a medicine or medicines with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including identifying product candidates, completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of product candidates, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing, and selling those medicines for which we may obtain marketing approval, and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. Other than reni-cel, we are currently only in the preclinical testing stages for our most advanced research programs. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investments in us.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we identify, continue the research and development of, initiate preclinical studies and clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates we develop, 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 a collaborator. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications or geographies for our product candidates or

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities on December 31, 2023, together with the near-term annual license fees and the contingent upfront payment payable under our license agreement with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated (“Vertex”), will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2026. As of December 31, 2023, our right to contingent payments under our collaboration agreements with BMS and Vor Bio, as well as our contingent upfront payment and annual license fees with Vertex, are our only significant committed potential external source of funds. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, even if we successfully identify and develop product candidates and those are approved, we will require significant additional amounts in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates and may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of medicines that we do not expect to be commercially available for years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, and licensing arrangements. We have limited significant committed potential external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of our stockholders may be materially diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely

We were founded and commenced operations in the second half of 2013. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing our technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and initiating and conducting clinical trials. Except for reni-cel, all of our research programs are still in the preclinical or research stage of development, and the risk of failure of all of our research programs is high. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale medicine, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors.

Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving genome editing field, may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future performance. Our relatively 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.

Even if one or more of the product candidates we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”), or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including the outcome of clinical development, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborator. If we are unable to develop, receive marketing approval for and successfully commercialize reni-cel, on our own or with any future collaborator, or experience delays as a result of any of these or other factors, our business would be substantially harmed.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our genome editing platform, which uses CRISPR technology. Our future success depends on the successful development of this relatively novel genome editing therapeutic approach. In 2023, the first and, to date, only, approved therapeutic product that utilizes genome editing, including CRISPR technology, was approved in the United States and Europe. It is difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our genome editing platform, or any similar or

competitive genome editing platforms, will result in the identification, development, and regulatory approval of any medicines. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our genome editing platform or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible, and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners. 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 develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Regulatory requirements governing genetic and cellular medicines, and in particular any novel genetic medicine products we may develop, have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. We are aware of a limited number of genetic medicines that have received marketing authorization from the FDA and EMA. Even with respect to more established products in the genetic medicine field, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Therapeutic Products (“OTP”) to oversee the review of genetic medicines and related products. It has also established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research on its review of gene therapy products. The FDA has also issued guidance documents, including a March 2022 draft guidance entitled “Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing” outlining the agency’s current recommendations regarding information that should be provided in an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) in order to assess the safety and quality of the investigational product. Nonetheless, the FDA’s regulatory requirements governing genetic and cellular medicines continue to evolve and we will need to monitor and adapt to these requirements as they develop.

The same is true for activities in the European Union. The EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) is responsible for assessing the quality, safety and efficacy of advanced-therapy medicinal products. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a genetic medicinal candidate that is submitted to the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) before it adopts its final opinion. In the European Union, the development and evaluation of a genetic medicinal product must be considered in the context of the relevant European Union guidelines. The EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for genetic medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. As a result, the procedures and standards applied to genetic medicines and cell therapy products may be applied to any product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidances they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance any product candidates we may develop, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of these product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

Although the FDA decides whether individual genetic medicine protocols may proceed, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (“RAC”) public review process, if undertaken, can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on a clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review or an exemption from in-depth, public review. If we were to engage an NIH-funded institution to conduct a clinical trial, that institution’s institutional biosafety committee as well as its institutional review board (“IRB”) would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of genetic medicine products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop. Similarly, the EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for genetic medicine products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

Adverse developments in post-marketing experience or in clinical trials conducted by others of genetic medicines or cell therapy products may cause the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for development or approval of any product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing non-viral genetic medicinal technologies, either of which could materially harm our business. In addition, 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 potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as the product candidates we may develop can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Regulatory agencies administering existing or future regulations or legislation may not allow production and marketing of products utilizing non-viral genetic medicine technology in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions. In addition, regulatory action or private litigation could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our research programs or the commercialization of resulting products.

In addition, ethical, social and legal concerns about genetic medicine, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed their intentions to further regulate biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that any product candidates we may develop are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of any product candidates we may develop under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

As we advance any product candidates we may develop through clinical development, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize products based on our genome editing platform. Other than reni-cel, all of our ongoing product development programs are still in the preclinical or research stage of development. Our research programs, including those subject to our collaboration with BMS, may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates, or our potential product candidates may be shown to have smaller patient populations than initially estimated or may have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products impractical to manufacture or commercialize, or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

The occurrence of these events may force us to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, as was the case with our Phase 1/2 BRILLIANCE trial of EDIT-101 to treat Leber congenital amaurosis, for which the identified responder patient population was determined to be too small to progress the program independently.

To date, we have focused our efforts on genome editing technologies using CRISPR and the Cas9 and Cas12a (also known as Cpf1) enzymes. Other companies have previously undertaken research and development of genome editing technologies using zinc finger nucleases, engineered meganucleases, and transcription activator-like effector nucleases, but to date none has obtained marketing approval for a product candidate. There can be no certainty that these other genome editing technologies will not be considered better or more attractive for the development of medicines. Similarly, a new genome editing technology that has not been discovered yet may be determined to be more attractive than CRISPR. Moreover, if we decide to develop genome technologies other than CRISPR technology using a Cas9 or Cas12a enzyme, we cannot be certain we will be able to obtain rights to such technologies. Any of these factors could reduce or eliminate our commercial opportunity, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on our successful development and eventual commercialization of product candidates that we have identified or may identify in the future. Our research programs, including any with collaborators, may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates impractical to manufacture, unmarketable, or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Any potential product candidates we identify will require preclinical and clinical activities and studies, regulatory review and approval in each jurisdiction in which we intend to market the products, substantial investment, establishing manufacturing capabilities, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

We have limited experience in evaluating product candidates in human clinical trials, having dosed our first patient in a clinical trial in 2020, and our proposed delivery modes, combined with CRISPR technology, have a limited history of being tested clinically. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidates we develop will ultimately prove safe in humans, including reni-cel. In the genomic medicine field, there have been several significant adverse events from gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia and death. There can be no assurance that genome editing technologies will not cause severe or undesirable side effects.

A significant risk in any genome editing product is that the edit will be “off-target” and cause serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics. For example, off-target cuts could lead to disruption of a gene or a genetic regulatory sequence at an unintended site in the DNA. We cannot be certain that off-target editing will not occur in any of our clinical studies. There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to genome editing therapy due to the potential for persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material.

If any product candidates we develop are associated with serious adverse events, or undesirable side effects, or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our product candidates that we are testing or may test in clinical trials, including reni-cel, or that are developed may be associated with off-target editing or other serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics. In addition to serious adverse events or side effects caused by any product candidate we develop and test, the administration process or related procedures also can cause undesirable side effects. If any such events occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that such adverse events were caused by factors other than our product candidate, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development 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 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.

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 (“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 of our product candidates, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologics proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development.

During the regulatory review process, we will need to identify success criteria and endpoints such that the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities will be able to determine the clinical efficacy and safety profile of our product candidates. As we are seeking to identify and develop product candidates to treat diseases in which there is little clinical experience using new technologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities may not consider the clinical trial endpoints that we propose to provide clinically meaningful results. Even if the FDA does find our success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoints to a degree of statistical significance. This may be a particularly significant risk for many of the genetically defined diseases for which we plan to develop product candidates because many of these diseases have small patient populations, and designing and executing a rigorous clinical trial with appropriate statistical power is more difficult than with diseases that have larger patient populations. The FDA weighs the benefits of a product against its risks, and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of regulatory approval. Any product candidates we develop will be based on a novel technology that makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. Only one genome editing therapeutic product has been approved in the United States or in Europe.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in humans of any such product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete, and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results.

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

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

Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for any of our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company 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.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and our product candidates for specific indications among many potential options. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial medicines 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 medicines. 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. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if any product candidates we develop meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials, and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a REMS. These regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any product candidates we develop. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for any product candidates we develop and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our potential therapeutic products involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of our potential products will depend in part on public understanding and acceptance of the use of genome editing therapy for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. To date, only one genome editing therapy has been approved for sale by the FDA. Public attitudes may be influenced by claims that genome editing is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, consequently, our products may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. 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 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 addition, genome editing technology is subject to public debate and heightened regulatory scrutiny due to ethical concerns relating to the application of genome editing technology to human embryos or the human germline. For example, academic scientists in several countries, including the United States, have reported on their attempts to edit the genome of human embryos as part of basic research and, in November 2018, Dr. Jiankui He, a Chinese biophysics researcher who was an associate professor in the Department of Biology of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, announced he had created the first human genetically edited babies, twin girls and helped create a second gene-edited pregnancy. The announcement was negatively received by the public, in particular by those in the scientific community. In the United States, germline editing for clinical application has been expressly prohibited since enactment of a December 2015 U.S. FDA ban on such activity. Prohibitions are also in place in the United Kingdom, across most of Europe, in China, and many other countries around the world. In the United States, the NIH has announced that it would not fund any use of genome 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. Basic 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 genome 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.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved medicine for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our product candidates if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists 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 and other commercialization 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 commercialization personnel.

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us may be lower than if we were to market and sell any medicines we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Moreover, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy, genome editing and cell therapy fields, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. We will face competition with respect to any of our product candidates now and in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we have research programs. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. For example, in late 2023 and early 2024, the FDA approved Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel), a Cas9 genome-edited cell medicine, for the treatment of SCD and TDT. The FDA also approved in late 2023 bluebird bio’s LYFGENIATM (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), a cell-based gene therapy, for the treatment of SCD. If reni-cel is approved for marketing, these therapies will be directly competitive with reni-cel, our Cas12a genome-edited medicine for the treatment of SCD and TDT.

Our platform and product focus is the development of therapies using CRISPR technology specifically for genome editing. Other companies developing CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology or therapies using CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology include Artisan Bio, AvenCell Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, EdiGene, ERS Genomics, Excision Biotherapeutics, Inscripta, Intellia Therapeutics, Kamau Therapeutics, Sigma-Aldrich, ToolGen, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In addition, there have been and may continue to be discoveries of new CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. There are additional companies developing therapies using related CRISPR genome editing technologies, including other CRISPR nucleases, base editing, prime editing and gene writing. These companies include Amber Bio, Arbor Biotechnologies, Beam Therapeutics, Chroma Medicine, Emendo Biotherapeutics, Epic Bio, Integra Therapeutics, KSQ Therapeutics, Locus Biosciences, Mammoth Biosciences, Metagenomi, Poseida Therapeutics, Prime Medicine, Scribe Therapeutics, Tessera Therapeutics, Tome Biosciences, Tune Therapeutics, and Verve Therapeutics. There are also companies developing therapies using transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, Mega-TALs and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include 2Seventy Bio, Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, Precision Biosciences, and Sangamo Therapeutics. In addition to competition from other genome editing therapies, gene therapies or cell medicine therapies, any products that we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, protein, oligonucleotide, or ribonucleic acid therapies. For hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Acceleron Pharma, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Global Blood Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Vertex.

Many of our competitors may 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, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop or that would render any products that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. 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 develop against competitors.

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

Our ability to commercialize any medicines successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these medicines and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) includes several measures intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs and related healthcare reforms, including limits on price increases and subjecting an escalating number of drugs to annual price negotiations with The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We cannot be sure whether additional legislation or rulemaking related to the IRA will be issued or enacted, or what impact, if any, such changes will have on the profitability of any of our drug candidates, if approved for commercial use, in the future. 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 medicine 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 medicines, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any medicine 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 medicines, 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 medicine and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost medicines and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for medicines 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 medicines 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 medicines we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize medicines, and our overall financial condition.

reimbursement is provided for services related to any of our product candidates, e.g., for administration of our product to patients, is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our products. In addition, it may be necessary for us to develop new reimbursement models in order to realize adequate value. Payors may not be able or willing to adopt such new models, and patients may be unable to afford that portion of the cost that such models may require them to bear. If we determine such new models are necessary but we are unsuccessful in developing them, or if such models are not adopted by payors, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be adversely affected.

We expect the cost of a single administration of our genomic medicine products to be substantial, when and if they achieve regulatory approval. For example, Vertex has announced that the list price for its recently approved Cas9 genome-edited cell medicine for the treatment of SCD and TDT is $2.2 million, while bluebird bio’s recently approved cell-based gene therapy for SCD has a list price of $3.1 million. We expect that coverage and reimbursement by government and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of any such product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of any product candidates we develop will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit, and similar healthcare management organizations, or will be reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers, and other third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical, and cost-effectiveness data. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to realize a sufficient return on our investment. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell any product candidates we develop will be harmed.

We and any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air, and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our commercial general liability and umbrella liability policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our product candidates can require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as our product candidates 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. 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. If we successfully develop product candidates, we may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or other comparable applicable foreign standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

In addition, the FDA, the EMA, and other 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 regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the 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

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination during manufacturing. Any contamination could materially harm our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Some of the raw materials that we anticipate will be required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall, or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of any product candidates we develop could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could materially harm our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or the facilities with which we contract 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. Problems in third-party manufacturing process or facilities also could restrict our ability to ensure sufficient clinical material for any clinical trials we may be conducting or are planning to conduct and meet market demand for any products we commercialize.

We anticipate seeking third-party collaborators for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we develop or for development of certain of our research programs. Our likely collaborators include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them and, if applicable, whether they exercise any additional options to commercialize a product. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any milestone or royalty payments under such collaborations. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval, and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K apply to the activities of our collaborators.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. 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.

We may also be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators or allies. For example, under our amended and restated collaboration with BMS, we may not use directly or indirectly, or license others to use, genome editing technology in connection with any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploration of certain T cells, subject to certain exceptions, as more fully described in “Part I—Business—Our Collaborations and Licensing Strategy” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Collaborations are also complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, 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 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 product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct our clinical trials. We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct some aspects of our research and preclinical testing. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities would be delayed.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our 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 standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, 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.

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

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of materials for our research programs, preclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so and for commercialization of any product candidates that we develop. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of such materials, product candidates, or any medicines that we may develop and commercialize, or that such supply will not be available to us at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent, or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We have a limited ability to manufacture materials for our research programs and preclinical studies and we do not operate any significant manufacturing facilities. While we currently perform some manufacturing for our internal programs, as well as cell processing for reni-cel, we primarily rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the manufacture of our other materials for preclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so and for commercial supply of any product candidates that we develop and for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. If we were to experience an unexpected loss or interruption of supply for any of our product candidates, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. Further, our product candidates are composed of multiple components and require specialized formulations for which scale-up and manufacturing could be difficult. We have limited experience in such scale-up and manufacturing requiring us to depend on a limited number of third parties, who may not be able to deliver in a timely manner, or at all. In order to develop products, apply for regulatory approvals, and commercialize our products, we will need to develop, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the necessary manufacturing capabilities.

Additionally, our product candidates have not yet been manufactured for commercial use. If any of our product candidates become approved for commercial sale, we will need to establish either internal or third-party manufacturing capacity. Manufacturing partner requirements may require us to fund capital improvements, perhaps on behalf of third parties, to support the scale-up of manufacturing and related activities. We may not be able to establish scaled manufacturing capacity for an approved product in a timely or economic manner, if at all. If we or our third-party manufacturers are unable to provide commercial quantities of such an approved product, we will have to successfully transfer manufacturing technology to a different manufacturer. Engaging a new manufacturer for such an approved product could require us to conduct comparative studies or utilize other means to determine bioequivalence of the new and prior manufacturers' products, which could delay or prevent our ability to commercialize such an approved product. If we or any of these manufacturers is unable or unwilling to increase its manufacturing capacity or if we are unable to establish alternative arrangements on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, the development and commercialization of such an approved product may be delayed or there may be a shortage in supply. Any inability to manufacture our product candidates or future approved drugs in sufficient quantities when needed would seriously harm our business. While we are exploring alternative suppliers for certain critical materials, there can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful.

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocations, seizures or recalls of product candidates or medicines, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our medicines and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our CRISPR platform technology and any proprietary product candidates and technology we develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property relating to our platform technology and filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. If we or our licensors and/or collaborators are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our CRISPR platform technology and any proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in the field of genome editing, including CRISPR technology, has emerged in the United States. The scope of patent protection outside of the United States is also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. 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.

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 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,

Moreover, 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 issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we hold or in-license may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our 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 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 or Cas12a. Our owned and in-licensed patents may not cover CRISPR technology in conjunction with a protein other than Cas9 or Cas12a. If our competitors commercialize the CRISPR technology in conjunction with a protein other than Cas9 or Cas12a, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Our licensors are currently, and we or our licensors may in the future become, subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) or opposition, derivation, revocation, re-examination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings and other similar proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our 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. As discussed below, some of our in-licensed patents are subject to interference, opposition and ex parte re-examination proceedings and therefore subject to these risks.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we or our licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our owned and in-licensed patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our licensors. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, the research resulting in certain of our owned and in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the U.S. government has certain rights to such patent rights and technology. These rights may permit the U.S. government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We are heavily reliant upon licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our genome editing technology, including our CRISPR 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 and in 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. For example, pursuant to our license agreements with The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”), and Broad and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”), the licensors may, under certain circumstances, grant a license to the patents that are the subject of such license agreements to a third party. Such third party would have full rights to the patent rights that are the subject of such licenses, which could impact our competitive position and enable a third party to commercialize products similar to our future product candidates and technology. The terms of these license agreements are described more fully under “Part I—Business—Our Collaborations and Licensing Strategy” in this Annual Report.

In addition, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement, and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. For example, pursuant to each of our intellectual property licenses with Broad and Harvard, our licensors retain control of preparation, filing, prosecution, and maintenance, and, in certain circumstances, enforcement and defense of their patents and patent applications. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. Additionally, we are required to reimburse our licensors for all of their expenses related to the prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications that we in-license from them, and we anticipate that our obligation to reimburse our licensors for expenses related to these matters will continue to be substantial.

Our licensors may have relied on third party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents and patent applications we in-license. For example, certain patent applications licensed to us by Broad are co-owned with NIH. Broad does not and does not purport to grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these patent applications under our agreement. If other third parties have ownership rights to our in-licensed patents and patent applications, they may be able to license such patents and patent applications to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Some of our in-licensed patents are subject to priority and validity disputes. In addition, our owned and in-licensed patents, patent applications and other intellectual property may be subject to further priority and validity disputes, and other similar intellectual property proceedings including inventorship disputes. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we develop, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Certain U.S. patents and a U.S. patent application directed to CRISPR/Cas9 that are co-owned by the Broad Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), and in some cases Harvard (collectively referred to as “Broad”), and in-licensed by us were involved in a first interference with a U.S. patent application that is co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively referred to “CVC”). An interference is a proceeding in United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“PTAB”) to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties. In this first interference, the PTAB made a judgment of no interference-in-fact in favor of the Broad, which was upheld on appeal. This decision was final and bars any further interference between the same parties for claims to the same invention that was considered in the interference. As a result of this decision, the U.S. patents and application that we in-license from the Broad and others were not modified or revoked.

the first interference. The invention that was considered in the first interference related to a method involving contacting a target DNA in a eukaryotic cell with certain defined CRISPR/Cas9 components for the purpose of cleaving or editing that target DNA molecule or modulating transcription of at least one gene encoded thereon. The second interference is directed to a different invention, namely a eukaryotic cell comprising a target DNA and certain defined CRISPR/Cas9 components including a single molecule guide RNA that are capable of cleaving or editing the target DNA molecule.

On September 10, 2020, the PTAB granted Broad’s motion for priority benefit while denying CVC priority benefit to their two earliest provisional patent applications. As a result, Broad entered the priority phase of the interference as “Senior Party” while CVC remained the “Junior Party” for purposes of determining which entity was the first to invent the inventions at issue. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision regarding the priority phase of the interference determining that Broad was the first entity to invent the claims at issue. This decision has been appealed by CVC and the Broad has cross-appealed. It is uncertain when or in what manner the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will act on these appeals.

On December 14, 2020, the PTAB, declared two new interferences involving a pending U.S. patent application that is owned by ToolGen, Inc. (the “ToolGen application”). One of the two interferences is between the ToolGen application and certain U.S. patents and U.S. patent applications that are co-owned by Broad and in-licensed by us. Most of the Broad U.S. patents and patent applications that are involved in the interference with ToolGen are also part of the second interference with CVC. The other ToolGen interference is between the same ToolGen application and the U.S. patent applications that are co-owned by CVC and involved in the second interference with Broad. The claims in ToolGen’s patent application relate to a mammalian cell with a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a codon optimized nucleic acid encoding a Cas9 polypeptide with a nuclear localization signal and a single-molecule guide RNA that, together, are capable of forming a Cas9/RNA complex that mediates double stranded cleavage of a target nucleic acid sequence. On September 28, 2022, the PTAB suspended both of these interferences until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in the pending appeals related to the second interference between Broad and CVC.

On June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared two new interferences involving a pending U.S. patent application owned by Sigma-Aldrich (the “Sigma-Aldrich application”). One of the two new interferences is between the Sigma-Aldrich application and certain U.S. patents and U.S. patent applications that are co-owned by Broad and in-licensed by us. The other Sigma interference is between the same Sigma-Aldrich application and the U.S. patent applications that are co-owned by CVC. Most of the Broad U.S. patents and patent applications that are involved in the interference with Sigma-Aldrich are also part of the concurrent interferences with CVC and ToolGen. The claims in Sigma-Aldrich’s application relate to a method for modifying a chromosomal sequence in a eukaryotic cell by integrating a donor sequence into that chromosomal sequence. These methods use a CRISPR/Cas9 system comprising a Cas9 polypeptide with a nuclear localization signal, a guide RNA, and a donor sequence that, together, are capable of mediating double stranded cleavage and repair of a target nucleic acid sequence leading to integration of the donor sequence into the chromosomal sequence. On December 14, 2022, the PTAB suspended both of these interferences until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in the pending appeals related to the second interference between Broad and CVC.

Our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, or may in the future become, subject to validity disputes in the USPTO and other foreign patent offices. For example, a request for ex parte re-examination was filed with the USPTO on February 16, 2016 against a U.S. patent that we have in-licensed from Broad, which is involved in certain of the interferences. The request for ex parte re-examination was granted on May 9, 2016 thereby initiating a re-examination procedure between the USPTO and The Broad Institute, acting on behalf of itself and MIT. The PTAB has suspended the re-examination noting that it has jurisdiction over any file that involves a patent involved in an interference. It is uncertain when the PTAB will lift the suspension. If The Broad Institute is unsuccessful during the re-examination, the patent in question may be revoked or narrowed, which could have a material adverse effect on the scope of our rights under such patent.

We or our licensors are subject to and may in the future become a party to similar proceedings or priority disputes in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions. For example, certain European patents that we have in-licensed from Broad have been revoked in their entirety by the European Patent Office Opposition Division (the “Opposition Division”). Certain other European patents that we have in-licensed from Broad were maintained with amended patent claims. Certain of these decisions have been appealed by both Broad and the opposing party(s), and it is uncertain when or in what manner the Boards of Appeal will act on these appeals. The Opposition Division has also initiated opposition proceedings against certain other European patents that we have in-licensed from Broad. The European Patent Office opposition proceedings may involve issues including, but not limited to, procedural formalities related to filing the European patent application, priority, and the patentability of the involved claims. In view of certain arguments made by the third parties against the revoked patents and similar arguments made by the third parties against other in-licensed European patents under opposition, the opposition proceedings may lead to the revocation of certain additional in-licensed European patents. The loss of priority for, or the loss of, these European patents could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business. One or more of the third parties that have filed oppositions against these European patents or other third parties may file future oppositions against other European patents that we in-license or own. There may be other oppositions against these European patents that have not yet been filed or that have not yet been made available to the public.

If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any patent related disputes, including interference proceedings, patent oppositions, re-examinations, or other priority, inventorship, or validity disputes to which we or they are subject (including any of the proceedings discussed above), we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of one or more patents owned or licensed or our owned or licensed patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. In addition, if we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any inventorship disputes to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or the exclusive right to use, our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any interference proceeding or other priority or inventorship dispute, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or may be non-exclusive or may not be available at all. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our owned and in-licensed patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects. Even if we are successful in any interference proceeding or other priority, inventorship, or validity disputes, it could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and other employees.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. In addition, our intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. For example, certain U.S. patent applications licensed to us by Broad include The University of Tokyo (“Tokyo”) and NIH as joint applicants. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection or licenses but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

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

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

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such 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.

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

We have entered into license agreements with third parties and may need to obtain additional licenses from our existing licensors and others to advance our research or allow commercialization of product candidates we develop. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain any additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including CRISPR genome editing technology, manufacturing methods, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, including the amount, if any, that may become due and payable to our licensors in connection with sublicense income. If these events were to occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

We currently have rights to intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to identify and develop product candidates. Many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions are competing with us in the field of genome editing technology and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business. For example, we are aware of third party patents and patent applications that may be construed to cover our CRISPR technology and product candidates. In order to avoid infringing these third party patents, or patents that issue from these third party patent applications, 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 non-CRISPR technologies including certain delivery methods that we are evaluating for use with product candidates we develop. In addition, with respect to any patents we co-own with third parties, we may require licenses to such co-owners’ interest in 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 our CRISPR technology and product candidates we develop. For example, certain methods for editing cells, guide RNA modifications and delivery modes, including certain adeno-associated virus vector technologies, that we are evaluating for us for use are covered by patents held by third parties. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If we or one of our licensors or our collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering a product candidate we develop or our technology, including CRISPR genome editing technology, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. Third parties have raised challenges to the validity of certain of our in-licensed patent claims and may in the future raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. These and other proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. 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 develop. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The field of genome editing, especially in the area of CRISPR 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 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 develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. 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 develop, including interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the EPO. 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. We are aware of certain third party patents and patent applications in this landscape that may be asserted to encompass our CRISPR/Cas9 technology. In particular, we are aware of several separate families of U.S. patents and/or U.S. patent applications and foreign counterparts which relate to CRISPR/Cas9 technology, where the earliest priority dates of each family pre-date the priority dates of our in-licensed patents and patent applications, including patent families filed by Vilnius University, by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, by ToolGen, and by Sigma-Aldrich. Each of these patent families are owned by a different third party and contain claims that may be construed to cover components and uses of CRISPR/Cas9 technology. If we are not able to obtain or maintain a license on commercially reasonable terms to any third-party patents that cover our product candidates or activities, such third parties could potentially assert infringement claims against us, which could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business.

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, 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 develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third party patents. 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 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.

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 (the “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, an extension may not be granted because of, for example, failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failure to apply within applicable deadlines, failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Further, 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 and/or competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expirations, and it could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

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

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment 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.

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 information and to maintain our competitive position. With respect to our technology platform, we consider trade secrets and know-how to be one of our primary sources of intellectual property. 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 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, 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 trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we 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 (the “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 term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

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

Any of our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs 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, and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any of our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, 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 is 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 medicine not commercially viable.

Further, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes, promulgation of regulations or issuance of guidance during preclinical or clinical development, or comparable changes in the regulatory review process for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA regulated products. Further, on January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became applicable in the European Union (“EU”) and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the EU (“EU Member State”) will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. We have not previously secured authorization to conduct clinical studies in the EU pursuant to this new regulation and, accordingly, there is a risk that we may be delayed in commencing any such studies.

We may seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious 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. For products 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.

The FDA may also 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.

These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products 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 qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

In the EU, we may seek PRIME designation for some of our product candidates in the future. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA’s role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. The program focuses on medicines that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the EU or even if such a method exists, it may offer a major therapeutic advantage over

existing treatments. PRIME is limited to medicines under development and not authorized in the EU and the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. To be accepted for PRIME, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a CHMP rapporteur to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization.

Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of regulatory exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product In addition, the licensure of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as its BLA does not reply on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty, and any new policies or processes adopted by the FDA could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Nonetheless, the approval of a biosimilar to our product candidates would have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

In September 2021, the FDA issued final guidance describing its current thinking on when a gene therapy product is the “same” as another product for purposes of orphan exclusivity. Under the guidance, if either the transgene or vector differs between two gene therapy products in a manner that does not reflect “minor” differences, the two products would be considered different drugs for orphan drug exclusivity purposes. The FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing sameness. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (“FDARA”). FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The new legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Further, under Omnibus legislation signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received orphan drug designation before enactment of FDARA in 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by the FDA.

The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law.

On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

In order to market and sell any of our product candidates in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our medicines in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Further, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain ("GB"), comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern

Ireland is currently subject to EU rules. The UK and EU have however agreed to the Windsor Framework which fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK Once implemented, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework will see the MHRA be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., GB and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland.

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may however have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets (such as the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia); compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

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 medicine, 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, cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and 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 medicine 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 medicine.

Further, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various conditions adopted under a REMS. In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that may negatively impact the development, approval and distribution of drug products in the U.S. Among other determinations, the district court held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that FDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving mifepristone without sufficiently considering evidence bearing on whether the drug was safe to use under the conditions identified in its labeling. Further, the district court read the standing requirements governing litigation in federal court as permitting a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS based on a showing that the plaintiff or its members would be harmed to the extent that FDA’s drug approval decision effectively compelled the plaintiffs to provide care for patients suffering adverse events caused by a given drug.

On April 12, 2023, the district court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court entered a stay of the district court’s decision, in its entirety, pending disposition of the appeal of the district court decision in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari to or the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral argument in the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The court declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market, finding that a challenge to the FDA’s initial approval in 2000 is barred by the statute of limitations. But the court did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for

Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators we may have, receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, 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.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. In addition, disruptions may result from events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the United States facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to a similar public health emergency and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities.

Accordingly, if a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and ongoing surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements and regulatory inspection. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA, EMA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labelling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the U.S. prior to being imported or offered for import into the U.S. If we or a regulatory authority discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

The FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell, and distribute our medicines for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

•the federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, including civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government payors that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages and significant per-claim penalties;

•the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as further amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which imposes certain requirements, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers;

•analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and certain state laws that 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 drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures.

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 are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

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

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any future collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).

Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (the “CAA”), which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the CAA delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The CAA’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts for Jobs Act in 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

In addition, in October 2020, Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”) to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation.

Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.

Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”), Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

In addition, in some countries, including member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take a significant amount of time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices, and in certain instances render commercialization in certain markets infeasible or disadvantageous from a financial perspective. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product and/or our product candidates to other available products in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third party payors or government authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, the commercial launch of our product and/or product candidates could be delayed, possibly for lengthy periods of time, we or our collaborators may not launch at all in a particular country, we may not be able to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, and there could be a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants, and partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the European Union and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA, the European Commission, and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately, or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing, and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements. Such misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced primarily by the Department of Justice. The SEC is involved with enforcement of the books and records provisions of the FCPA.

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

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. Our expansion outside of the United States has required, and will continue to require, us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain drugs and drug candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial penalties, including suspension or debarment from government contracting. Violation of the FCPA can result in significant civil and criminal penalties. Indictment alone under the FCPA can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the U.S. government until the pending claims are resolved. Conviction of a violation of the FCPA can result in long-term disqualification as a government contractor. The termination of a government contract or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of our obligations under laws governing international business practices would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure government contracts. The

We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally-identifying information, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information, including comprehensive regulatory systems in the U.S., EU and UK. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information. In particular, regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) establish privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. Determining whether protected health information has been handled in compliance with applicable privacy standards and our contractual obligations can be complex and may be subject to changing interpretation. These obligations may be applicable to some or all of our business activities now or in the future.

If we are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of protected health information, we could be found to have breached our contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, including applicable HIPAA privacy and security standards, we could face civil and criminal penalties. HHS enforcement activity can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. In addition, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations that threaten the privacy of state residents. We cannot be sure how these regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems.

In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.

Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law in 2023 that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data and additional states (including Vermont) are considering such legislation for 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Similar to the laws in the U.S., there are significant privacy and data security laws that apply in Europe and other countries. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is regulated by the GDPR, which went into effect in May 2018 and which imposes obligations on companies that operate in our industry with respect to the processing of personal data and the cross-border transfer of such data. The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing and policies. If our or our partners’ or service providers’ privacy or data security measures fail to comply with the GDPR requirements, we may be subject to litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement notices requiring us to change the way we use personal data and/or fines of up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, as well as compensation claims by affected individuals, negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill.

The GDPR places restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the EU to countries that have not been found by the EC to offer adequate data protection legislation, such as the U.S. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. While we were not self-certified under the Privacy Shield, this CJEU decision may lead to increased scrutiny on data transfers from the EEA to the U.S. generally and increase our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners.

Following the CJEU decision, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The EC initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022, and has now adopted an adequacy decision to permit data transfers from the EU to the US going forward. This development permits data transfers at this point under this Framework and more broadly has made international data transfers more straightforward, but these provisions are being challenged in court.

Following Brexit, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the U.K. and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the U.K. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the U.K. that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the U.K., it is unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the U.K. will remain lawful under the GDPR. The U.K. government has already determined that it considers all European Union 27 and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the U.K. to the EU/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the U.K. as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the U.K., although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. The UK and the United States also have agreed on a framework for personal data to be transferred between the UK and the United States, called the U.K.-U.S. Data Bridge. The U.K.-U.S. Data Bridge may be challenged in the future.

While we continue to address the implications of the recent changes to data privacy regulations, data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect and continued legal challenges, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. We must devote significant resources to understanding and complying with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with laws regarding data protection would expose us to risk of enforcement actions taken by data protection authorities in the EEA and elsewhere and carries with it the potential for significant penalties if we are found to be non-compliant. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws in the U.S. regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties under such laws. Any such failure to comply with data protection and privacy laws could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, claims for damages or other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement action, litigation and significant costs for remediation, any of which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may 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. In addition, our ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel could be impacted by other factors, such as remote or hybrid working arrangements, which could impact employees’ productivity and morale, as well as any failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical trials. The inability to recruit or the loss of the services of any executive, key employee, consultant or advisor may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

•business disruptions caused by potential workplace, laboratory and office closures and an increased reliance on employees working from home, disruptions to or delays in ongoing laboratory experiments and operations, staffing shortages, travel limitations, cyber security and data accessibility, or communication or mass transit disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our business operations or delay necessary interactions with local regulators, ethics committees, manufacturing sites, research or clinical trial sites and other important agencies and contractors.

We expect growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of manufacturing, clinical development, drug development, and regulatory affairs, and, if any product candidates receive marketing approval, sales and marketing. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational, and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expected expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Moreover, the expected physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, process and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, as well as our proprietary business information and that of our suppliers and business partners, employee data, and we may collect personally identifiable information of clinical trial participants in connection with clinical trials. We also rely to a large extent on information technology systems to operate our business, including our financial systems. We have outsourced elements of our confidential information processing and information technology structure, and as a result, we are managing independent vendor relationships with third parties who may or could have access to our confidential information. Similarly, our business partners and other third-party providers possess certain elements of our sensitive data. The secure maintenance of this information is important to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology infrastructure (and those of our partners, vendors and third-party providers) may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. We, our partners, vendors, and other third-party providers could be susceptible to third party attacks on our, and their, information security systems, which attacks are of ever-increasing levels of sophistication and are made by groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise, including organized criminal groups, hacktivists, nation states and others. We have implemented a hybrid work model, which may place our information technology infrastructure and data at increased risk as more of our employees work from home utilizing network connections outside our premises. Additionally, sensitive data could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with our employees’, vendors’ or partners’ use of generative AI technologies. We have invested in information technology security measures and the protection of confidential and sensitive information, but there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent system failures, accidents or security breaches. While we believe we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, any such event may substantially impair our ability to operate our business and would compromise our, and their, networks and the information stored could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost, or stolen. In addition, if a

ransomware attack or other cybersecurity incident occurs, either internally or at our vendors or third-party technology service providers, we could be prevented from accessing our data or systems, which may cause interruptions or delays in our business operations, cause us to incur remediation costs, subject us to demands to pay a ransom, or damage our reputation, regardless of whether we pay the ransom amount. Any such event, or other loss of information, could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disrupt our operations, and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

Although we have general liability and cybersecurity insurance coverage, our insurance may not cover all claims, continue to be available on reasonable terms or be sufficient in amount to compensate us fully for potential significant losses; additionally, the insurer may disclaim coverage as to any claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed or are not covered by our insurance coverage or changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of the companies whose stock is experiencing those price and volume fluctuations. Because of the potential volatility of our stock price, we may become the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

We will need additional capital in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.

As a public company we incur, and will continue to incur, significant legal, accounting, and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Select 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 maintaining compliance with these requirements. These requirements increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Our management has broad discretion to use our cash reserves and could use our cash reserves in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause the price of our common stock to decline, and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest our cash reserves in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

A portion of our cash may be held by financial institutions that may have been, or could in the future become, exposed to liquidity issues, bank failures or other systemic financial risks. Our uninsured cash deposits with such financial institutions may be at risk in the event they experience liquidity problems or other financial losses. We assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, but our business, our business partners, or industry as a whole may be adversely impacted in ways that we cannot predict at this time, including our ability to access cash in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and/or projected business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect the financial institutions with which we have banking relationships, and in turn, us. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements (including cash management arrangements), disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry. In addition, our vendors, such as our CMOs, CROs or business partners, may be susceptible to the foregoing liquidity or other financial risks and factors, which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our current and/or projected business operations and results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Our restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless our board of directors otherwise determines, the state courts in the State of Delaware or, if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal court for the District of Delaware, will be the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors or officers to our company or our stockholders, any action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors or officers arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware or our restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors or officers governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with us or our directors or officers, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors and officers. This exclusive forum provision would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act of 1934, which provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. It could apply, however, to a suit that falls within one or more of the categories enumerated in the exclusive forum provision and asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), inasmuch as Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder; provided, that with respect to claims under the Securities Act, our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

We have established certain processes for assessing, identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which are built into our information technology functions and are designed to help protect our information, assets and operations from internal and external cyber threats. Such processes include physical, procedural and technical safeguards, response plans, regular tests on our systems, incident simulations and routine review of our policies and procedures to identify risks and refine our practices. We engage certain external parties, including consultants, independent privacy assessors, computer security firms and risk management and governance experts, as appropriate to enhance our cybersecurity oversight. We consider the internal risk oversight programs of third-party service providers before engaging them in order to help protect us from any related vulnerabilities.

Our Head of Information Security leads the operational oversight of company-wide cybersecurity strategy, policy, standards and processes, and works across relevant departments to assess and help prepare us and our employees to address cybersecurity risks. The Head of Information Security has approximately 20 years of cybersecurity expertise, including more than 15 years working in information security with the U.S. Federal Reserve System, serving most recently as the Assistant Vice President for Operations and Information Security. He has received both a GIAC Security Leadership certificate and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional certification.

We have also established a cross-functional Cybersecurity Incident Response Team led by our Head of Information Security serving as the chair and consisting of senior-level functional leaders, with appropriate members of our executive leadership team added on an ad hoc basis as necessary for any particular threat or incident. This team seeks to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our critical information assets and protect against cyber threats through establishing a proactive and effective incident response program, fostering a culture of security awareness, and ensuring the continuous improvement of our incident response capabilities. In the event of a cyber security incident, the team is responsible for the swift detection, containment, mitigation, and recovery from such incident to minimize business disruption, protect intellectual property, and maintain the trust of our stakeholders.

In an effort to deter prevent and detect cyber threats, we provide all employees, including part-time and temporary employees, with a data protection, cybersecurity and incident response and prevention training and compliance program, which covers timely and relevant topics, including social engineering, phishing, password protection, confidential data protection, asset use and mobile security, and educates employees on the importance of reporting all incidents immediately. We also use technology-based tools to mitigate cybersecurity risks and to bolster our employee-based cybersecurity programs.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of business. There can be no assurance that any proceedings that result from these third-party actions will be resolved in our favor. In addition, if they are not resolved in our favor, there can be no assurance that the result will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects. Certain of our intellectual property rights, including ones licensed to us under our licensing agreements, are subject to, and from time to time may be subject to, priority and validity disputes. For additional information regarding these matters, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.” Regardless of outcome, litigation or other legal proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. There are a number of important risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by forward-looking statements. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments that we may make.

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 may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K,and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

We are a clinical stage genome editing company dedicated to developing potentially transformative genomic medicines to treat a broad range of serious diseases. We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform based on CRISPR technology and we continue to expand its capabilities. Our product development strategy is to target diseases where gene editing can be used to enable or enhance therapeutic outcomes for patients, while maximizing probability of technical, regulatory and commercial success. We are focused on advancing gene editing medicines to treat hemoglobinopathies, beginning with the continued development of our current ex vivo renizgamglogene autogedtemcel ("reni-cel") (formerly known as EDIT-301) program and leveraging the insights gained from this program to pursue next generation in vivo gene editing medicines targeting hematopoietic stem cells (“HSCs”). We are also pursuing the development of in vivo gene editing medicines for other organs and tissues that we believe will significantly differentiate our genome editing approach from the current standards of care for serious diseases. As part of these efforts, we are using strategic partnerships and collaborations and pursuing further opportunities to extend the reach of our intellectual property portfolio and access complementary technologies to expedite our drug discovery and clinical execution objectives.

Our lead program, reni-cel, is an experimental ex vivo gene-edited medicine to treat sickle cell disease (“SCD”), a severe inherited blood disease that causes premature death, and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (“TDT”), the most severe form of beta-thalassemia, another inherited blood disorder characterized by severe anemia. We are investigating reni-cel in a single Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial, referred to as the RUBY trial, for the treatment of severe SCD. In 2022, we dosed the first patient in the RUBY trial, and after completing sequential dosing of the first two patients, we commenced concurrent patient dosing in the first quarter of 2023. Through February 28, 2024, we have enrolled 40 patients and dosed 18 patients in the RUBY trial. We continue to enroll and dose patients in the adult cohort of the RUBY trial, with multiple patients scheduled for dosing. We have also initiated enrollment in the adolescent cohort.

In December 2023, we presented new safety and efficacy data in 17 patients treated with reni-cel in both the RUBY and EdiTHAL trials. This clinical data, which remained consistent with and further confirmed earlier clinical results shared in June 2023 and December 2022, supports our belief that reni-cel can be a clinically differentiated, one-time, durable medicine that can provide life-changing clinical benefits to patients with SCD and TDT, specifically driving early and robust correction of anemia and sustained increases in fetal hemoglobin. For additional information regarding these clinical data, please see “Business—Our Gene Editing Medicine Programs—Hemoglobinopathies.” We expect to provide a clinical data updates for both the RUBY and EdiTHAL trials in mid-2024 and by year-end 2024.

We are also pursuing the development of next generation in vivo administered gene editing medicines, in which the medicine is injected or infused into the patient to edit the cells inside their body. We are initially focused on editing HSCs through targeted delivery of our AsCas12a enzyme to our clinically validated HBG1 and HBG2 promotor site. In 2023, we strengthened and focused our discovery organization to build an in vivo gene editing pipeline, and are on track to establish in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept for an undisclosed indication by year-end 2024.

Since our inception in September 2013, our operations have focused on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio, assembling our core capabilities in gene editing, seeking to identify potential product candidates, and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials. Except for reni-cel, all of our ongoing research programs are still in the preclinical or research stage of development and the risk of failure of all of our research programs is high. We have not generated any revenue from product sales. We have primarily financed our operations through various equity financings, payments received under our research collaboration with BMS, our former strategic alliance with Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited (together with its affiliates, “Allergan”), which was terminated in August 2020, and payments received in conjunction with our license agreement with Vertex.

that our expenses will increase substantially as we continue our current research programs and our preclinical development activities; progress the clinical development of reni-cel; seek to identify additional research programs and additional product candidates; initiate preclinical testing and clinical trials for other product candidates we identify and develop; maintain, expand, and protect our intellectual property portfolio, including reimbursing our licensors for such expenses related to the intellectual property that we in-license from such licensors; further develop our genome editing platform; hire additional clinical, quality control, and scientific personnel; and incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We do not expect to be profitable for the year ending December 31, 2024 or the foreseeable future.

In connection with our collaboration with BMS, we have received an aggregate of $135.5 million in payments, which have primarily consisted of the initial upfront and amendment payments, development milestone payments and research funding support. We no longer receive research funding support. During the year ended December 31, 2023, we recognized $4.5 million of revenue related to our collaboration with BMS of which none was previously deferred revenue. As of December 31, 2023, we had $56.7 million of deferred revenue related to BMS, of which $56.7 million is classified as long-term on our consolidated balance sheet. Under this collaboration, we will recognize revenue upon delivery of option packages to BMS or when milestones are achieved. As such, we expect that our revenue will fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year as a result of the timing of when these events occur.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other related costs, including stock-based compensation for personnel in executive, finance, investor relations, business development, legal, corporate affairs, information technology, facilities and human resource functions. Other significant costs include corporate facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses, legal fees related to intellectual property and corporate matters, and fees for accounting and consulting services.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future to support continued research and development activities and potential commercialization of any product candidates we identify and develop. These increases will include increased costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and fees to outside consultants. We also anticipate increased expenses related to reimbursement of third-party patent-related expenses and expenses associated with operating as a public company, including costs for audit, legal, regulatory, and tax-related services, director and officer insurance premiums, and investor relations costs. With respect to reimbursement of third-party intellectual property-related expenses specifically, given the ongoing nature of the opposition and interference proceedings involving the patents licensed to us under our license agreement with Broad and the President and Harvard, we anticipate general and administrative expenses will continue to be significant.

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires us to make judgments and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts, and experience. The effects of material revisions in estimates, if any, will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements prospectively from the date of change in estimates.

We recognize revenue in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”), Topic 606, Revenue Recognition (“ASC 606”). Accordingly, we recognize revenue following the five step model prescribed under Accounting Standards Updates No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: (i) identify contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenues when (or as) we satisfy the performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that we will collect the consideration we are entitled to in exchange for the goods or services we transfer to the customer. At contract inception, once the contract is determined to be within the scope of ASC 606, we assess the goods or services promised within each contract and determine those that are performance obligations, and whether each promised good or service is distinct. We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied. As part of the accounting for these arrangements, we must develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the standalone selling price for each performance obligation identified in the contract and use judgement in the determination of the transaction price and the application of the constraint. The determination of standalone selling price has not had a significant impact on the accounting for our revenue arrangements given the nature of the performance obligations. We have also not been required to apply significant judgement in determining the transaction price given the nature of the variable consideration and the application of the constraint.

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed or when contractual milestones are met. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to clinical research organizations, to investigative sites in connection with clinical trials, to sponsored research organizations, to service providers in connection with preclinical development activities and to service providers related to product manufacturing, development and distribution of clinical supplies.


	Year Ended December 31,				Dollar Change		Percentage Change
	2023		2022
Collaboration and other research and development revenues	$	78,123	$	19,712	$	58,411	n/m
Operating expenses:
Research and development	177,651		174,958		2,693		2 %
General and administrative	69,653		70,704		(1,051)		(1) %
Total operating expenses	247,304		245,662		1,642		1 %
Operating loss	(169,181)		(225,950)		56,769		(25) %
Other income, net:
Other income, net	(1,604)		—		(1,604)		n/m
Interest income, net	17,566		5,518		12,048		n/m
Total other income, net	15,962		5,518		10,444		n/m
Net loss	$	(153,219)	$	(220,432)	$	67,213	(30) %

As of December 31, 2023, we have raised an aggregate of $1.0 billion in net proceeds through the sale of shares of our common stock in public offerings and at-the-market offerings, including a public offering of our common stock in June 2023, pursuant to which we sold 12,500,000 shares of our common stock and received net proceeds of approximately $117.1 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs. We also have funded our business from our research collaboration with BMS, our former strategic alliance with Allergan, and payments received under the license agreement with Vertex. As of December 31, 2023, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $427.1 million.

In addition to our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, we are eligible to earn milestone and other payments under our collaboration agreement with BMS and our other collaboration and license agreements. Our ability to earn the milestone payments and the timing of earning these amounts are dependent upon the timing and outcome of our development, regulatory and commercial activities and, as such, are uncertain at this time. As of December 31, 2023, our right to contingent payments under our collaboration agreements with BMS and Vor Bio as well as our contingent upfront payment and annual license fees with Vertex are our only significant committed potential external source of funds.

candidates we identify and develop; maintain, expand, and protect our intellectual property portfolio, including reimbursing our licensors for expenses related to the intellectual property that we in-license from such licensors; hire additional clinical, quality control, and scientific personnel; and incur costs associated with operating as a public company. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any product candidate that we identify and develop, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, and distribution are not the responsibility of a collaborator. We do not expect to generate significant recurring revenue unless and until we obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize a product candidate. 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 our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities on December 31, 2023, together with the near-term annual license fees and the contingent upfront payment payable under our license agreement with Vertex, will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2026. Our forecast of the period of time through which our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves significant risks and uncertainties. We have based this forecast on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and actual results could vary materially from our expectations, which may adversely affect our capital resources and liquidity. We could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. The amount and timing of future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that takes many years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, even if we successfully identify and develop product candidates and those are approved, we will require significant additional amounts in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates and may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of genomic medicines that we do not expect to be commercially available for years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs, or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

In the second quarter of 2023, we entered into a license and service agreement pursuant to which we will lease manufacturing space for our continued research and development activities. As of December 31, 2023, the lease had not commenced for accounting purposes and it is not expected to commence until the first half of 2024. The license and service agreement provides for total remaining lease payments of up to $85.4 million over a 10-year lease term. We may terminate the license and service agreement in our discretion upon twelve months' prior written notice.

Our agreements with certain institutions to license intellectual property include potential milestone and success fees, sublicense fees, royalty fees, licensing maintenance fees, and reimbursement of patent maintenance costs that we may be required to pay. Our agreements to license intellectual property include potential milestone payments that are dependent upon the development of products using the intellectual property licensed under the agreements and contingent upon the achievement of development or regulatory approval milestones, as well as commercial milestones. These potential obligations are contingent upon the occurrence of future events and the timing and likelihood of such potential obligations are not known with certainty. For further information regarding these agreements, please see “Business—Our Collaborations and Licensing Strategy.”

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of $123.7 million, primarily held in money market mutual funds consisting of U.S. government-backed securities, and marketable securities of $303.5 million, primarily consisting of U.S. government-backed securities, U.S. Treasuries and corporate debt securities. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because our investments, including cash equivalents, are in the form, or may be in the form of, money market funds or marketable securities and are or may be invested in U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agency obligations. Due to the short-term maturities and low risk profiles of our investments, an immediate 100 basis point change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our investments.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Editas Medicine, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated “financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2023 and 2022, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.


			Research and Development Accruals

Description of the Matter			The Company’s accrual for research and development expenses totaled $16.2 million at December 31, 2023. As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company expenses research and development costs as incurred. The Company’s determination of costs incurred to conduct research and development on the Company’s product candidates, as well as the related accrued expenses at each reporting period incorporates judgment and utilizes various assumptions, including an evaluation of the information provided to the Company by third parties on actual costs incurred but not yet billed, estimated project timelines and patient enrollment. Payments for these activities are based on the terms of the individual arrangements, which often differ from the pattern of costs incurred. Auditing the Company’s research and development accruals is especially complex due to the judgments and estimations of the research and development expenses. The Company uses judgment and estimation to estimate costs incurred and not yet billed at each reporting period as a result of the volume of R&D contracts, as well as the extent of third-party vendors utilized. Additionally, due to the timing of invoices received from third parties, actual amounts incurred are not always known as of the audit report date.

How We Addressed the Matter in Our Audit			We obtained an understanding of the Company’s process, evaluated and tested the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls that address the risks related to the completeness and valuation of accrued research and development expenses. To test the research and development accrual, our audit procedures included, among others, testing the accuracy and completeness of the underlying data used in the estimates and evaluating and testing the significant assumptions that are used by management to estimate the accruals. To test the significant assumptions, we inspected the contracts and any amendments to the contracts with third-party service providers, corroborated the progress of research and development projects with the Company’s research and development personnel that oversee the clinical trials and the related manufacturing activities, and reviewed information received from third party vendors, which included the third parties’ estimate of costs incurred to date. We also tested subsequent invoicing received from third parties.


	December 31,
	2023		2022
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	123,652	$	141,522
Marketable securities	199,459		202,752
Accounts receivable	10,187		5,145
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	7,531		7,335
Total current assets	340,829		356,754
Marketable securities	104,024		93,097
Property and equipment, net	12,032		15,569
Right-of-use assets	33,680		43,648
Restricted cash and other non-current assets	8,588		5,253
Total assets	$	499,153	$	514,321
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	8,269	$	9,511
Accrued expenses	34,563		31,296
Deferred revenue, current	8,221		8,221
Operating lease liabilities	12,164		11,082
Total current liabilities	63,217		60,110
Operating lease liabilities, net of current portion	24,372		32,864
Deferred revenue, net of current portion	60,667		60,667
Other non-current liabilities	1,800		—
Total liabilities	150,056		153,641
Stockholders’ equity
Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value per share: 5,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued or outstanding	—		—
Common stock, $0.0001 par value per share: 195,000,000 shares authorized; 81,767,263 and 68,847,382 shares issued, and 81,767,263 and 68,847,382 shares outstanding at December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively	8		7
Additional paid-in capital	1,580,241		1,442,405
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	198		(3,601)
Accumulated deficit	(1,231,350)		(1,078,131)
Total stockholders’ equity	349,097		360,680
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	499,153	$	514,321


	Year Ended December 31,
	2023		2022		2021
Collaboration and other research and development revenues	$	78,123	$	19,712	$	25,544
Operating expenses:
Research and development	177,651		174,958		142,507
General and administrative	69,653		70,704		76,183
Total operating expenses	247,304		245,662		218,690
Operating loss	(169,181)		(225,950)		(193,146)
Other income, net:
Other income, net	(1,604)		—		37
Interest income, net	17,566		5,518		607
Total other income, net	15,962		5,518		644
Net loss	$	(153,219)	$	(220,432)	$	(192,502)


Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(2.02)	$	(3.21)	$	(2.85)
Weighted-average common shares outstanding, basic and diluted	75,965,633		68,664,822		67,619,388


	Common Stock			Additional Paid-In Capital		Accumulated Deficit		Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)		Total Stockholders’ Equity
	Shares	Amount
Balance at December 31, 2020	62,563,457	$	6	$	1,058,823	$	(665,197)	$	(46)	$	393,586
Issuance of common stock from public offering, net of issuance costs of $0.3 million	4,025,000	1		249,458		—		—		249,459
Issuance of common stock for repayment of notes payable	303,599	—		27,500		—		—		27,500
Exercise of stock options	1,233,958	—		31,495		—		—		31,495
Stock-based compensation expense	—	—		43,399		—		—		43,399
Vesting of restricted common stock awards	267,268	—		—		—		—		—
Purchase of common stock under benefits plans	41,975	—		1,152		—		—		1,152
Unrealized loss on marketable debt securities	—	—		—		—		(447)		(447)
Net loss	—	—		—		(192,502)		—		(192,502)
Balance at December 31, 2021	68,435,257	$	7	$	1,411,827	$	(857,699)	$	(493)	$	553,642
Exercise of stock options	19,769	—		305		—		—		305
Stock-based compensation expense	—	—		29,294		—		—		29,294
Vesting of restricted common stock awards	286,642	—		—		—		—		—
Purchase of common stock under benefit plan	105,714	—		979		—		—		979
Unrealized loss on marketable debt securities	—	—		—		—		(3,108)		(3,108)
Net loss	—	—		—		(220,432)		—		(220,432)
Balance at December 31, 2022	68,847,382	$	7	$	1,442,405	$	(1,078,131)	$	(3,601)	$	360,680
Issuance of common stock from public offering, net commissions, underwriting discounts and offering costs	12,500,000	1		117,078		—		—		117,079
Exercise of stock options	6,587	—		41		—		—		41
Stock-based compensation expense	—	—		19,798		—		—		19,798
Vesting of restricted common stock awards	297,934	—		—		—		—		—
Purchase of common stock under benefit plans	115,360	—		919		—		—		919
Unrealized gain on marketable debt securities	—	—		—		—		3,799		3,799
Net loss	—	—		—		(153,219)		—		(153,219)
Balance at December 31, 2023	81,767,263	$	8	$	1,580,241	$	(1,231,350)	$	198	$	349,097


	Year Ended December 31,
	2023		2022		2021
Cash flow from operating activities
Net loss	$	(153,219)	$	(220,432)	$	(192,502)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock-based compensation expense	19,798		29,294		43,399
Depreciation	6,064		6,337		5,053
Net amortization of premiums and discounts on marketable securities	(4,823)		(724)		1,657

Other non-cash items, net	1,596		—		—
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	(5,042)		(4,878)		5,781
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	(197)		(137)		3,731
Right-of-use assets	9,968		(17,475)		9,691
Other non-current assets	(3,335)		1,558		(2,108)
Accounts payable	(1,492)		4,368		(1,139)
Accrued expenses	4,114		10,505		(4,166)
Deferred revenue	—		(3,333)		(22,706)
Operating lease liabilities	(7,410)		17,568		(10,494)

Other current and non-current liabilities	1,800		—		—
Net cash used in operating activities	(132,178)		(177,349)		(163,803)
Cash flow from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment	(4,719)		(4,118)		(7,977)
Proceeds from the sale of equipment	—		18		—
Purchases of marketable securities	(258,517)		(315,186)		(408,891)
Proceeds from maturities of marketable securities	259,505		433,354		362,402

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	(3,731)		114,068		(54,466)
Cash flow from financing activities
Proceeds from offering of common stock, net of issuance costs	117,079		—		249,459
Proceeds from exercise of stock options	41		305		31,495
Issuance of common stock under benefit plans	919		979		1,152
Net cash provided by financing activities	118,039		1,284		282,106
Net (decrease) increase in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash	(17,870)		(61,997)		63,837
Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash, beginning of period	145,399		207,396		143,559
Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash, end of period	$	127,529	$	145,399	$	207,396
Supplemental disclosure of cash and non-cash activities:
Fixed asset additions included in accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	845	$	1,440	$	749
Cash paid in connection with operating lease liabilities	12,428		14,851		13,094
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange of operating lease obligations	2,752		29,861		10,736

In October 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-06 "Disclosure Improvements: Codification Amendments in Response to the SEC's Disclosure Update and Simplification Initiative." which incorporates certain SEC disclosure requirements into the FASB Accounting Standards Codification ("Codification"). The amendments in the ASU are expected to clarify or improve disclosure and presentation requirements of a variety Codification topics, allow investors to more easily compare entities subject to the SEC's existing disclosures with those entities that were not previously subject to the requirements, and align the requirements in the Codification with the SEC's regulations. The effective date for each amendment will be the date on which the SEC's removal of that related disclosure from Regulation S-X or Regulation S-K becomes effective, with early adoption prohibited. The amendments in this ASU should be applied prospectively. The Company doe not expect ASU 2023-06 will have a material impact to its consolidated financial statements.

Based on our procedures under the expected credit loss model, including an assessment of unrealized losses in our portfolio, the Company concluded that any unrealized losses on marketable securities were not attributable to credit and, therefore, did not record an allowance for credit losses for these securities as of December 31, 2023 and 2022." As of December 31, 2023, the Company holds 23 securities with an aggregate fair value of $104.0 million that had remaining maturities between one and two years. All other securities had a contractual maturity of less than a year.

Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2023. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2023, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with general accepted accounting principles. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the 2013 framework in Internal Control–Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our evaluation under that framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023.

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

A portion of the compensation of our directors and officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)) is in the form of equity awards and, from time to time, directors and officers may engage in open-market transactions with respect to the securities acquired pursuant to such equity awards or other of our securities, including to satisfy tax withholding obligations when equity awards vest or are exercised, and for diversification or other personal reasons.

Transactions in our securities by directors and officers are required to be made in accordance with our insider trading policy, which requires that the transactions be in accordance with applicable U.S. federal securities laws that prohibit trading while in possession of material nonpublic information. Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act provides an affirmative defense that enables directors and officers to prearrange transactions in our securities in a manner that avoids concerns about initiating transactions while in possession of material nonpublic information.

Except to the extent provided below, the information required by this Item 10 will be included in the section captioned “Corporate Governance” and the subsections thereof, “Nominees for Election as Class II Directors,” “Directors Continuing in Office,” “Executive Officers Who Are Not Directors,” and “Delinquent Section 16(a) Reports,” if applicable, in our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to our 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

We have adopted a written code of business conduct and ethics that applies to our directors, officers, and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. A copy of the code is posted on the Corporate Governance section of our website, which is located at www.editasmedicine.com. If we make any substantive amendments to, or grant any waivers from, the code of business conduct and ethics for any officer or director, we will disclose the nature of such amendment or waiver on our website or in a current report on Form 8-K. We will provide any person, without charge, a copy of such Code of Business Conduct and Ethics upon written request, which may be mailed to 11 Hurley Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, Attn: Corporate Secretary.

Incorporated by Reference

Exhibit
Number

Description of Exhibit

Form

File No.

Date of
Filing

Exhibit
Number

Filed
Herewith

10.32

First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 15, 2022 between Registrant and ARE-MA Region No. 55, LLC

10-K

001-37687

2/22/2023

10.32

10.33†

Cpf1 License Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2016, by and between the Registrant and Broad

8-K

001-37687

1/23/2017

99.1

10.34†

Cas9-II License Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2016, by and between the Registrant and Broad

8-K

001-37687

1/23/2017

99.3

10.35*

Omnibus Amendment, dated as of January 11, 2021, by and between the Registrant and Broad

10-K

001-37687

2/26/2021

10.32

10.36

Omnibus Amendment, dated as of February 5, 2024, by and among the Registrant, Broad and Harvard

10.37*

Letter Agreement, dated as of November 18, 2019, by and among, the Registrant, Broad and Harvard

10-K

001-37687

2/26/2020

10.30

10.38*

Letter Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2019, by and among, the Registrant, Broad and Harvard

10-K

001-37687

2/26/2020

10.31

10.39

Common Stock Sales Agreement, dated as of May 14, 2021, by and between the Company and Cowen and Company, LLC

8-K

001-37687

5/14/2021

1.1

21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

10-K

001-37687

2/22/2023

21.1

23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young

31.1

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer

31.2

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Principal Financial Officer

32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Dodd-Frank Compensation Recovery Policy

101

The following financial statements from the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, formatted in Inline XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (ii) Consolidated Statements of Operations, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss, (iv) Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity, (v) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and (vi) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, tagged as blocks of text and including detailed tags.

104

The cover page from the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, formatted in Inline XBRL.

Signature

Title

Date

/s/ Gilmore O’Neill

President and Chief Executive Officer, Director (principal executive officer)

February 28, 2024

Gilmore O’Neill, M.B., M.M.Sc.

/s/ Erick Lucera

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)

February 28, 2024

Erick Lucera

/s/ Emma Reeve

Chair of the Board

February 28, 2024

Emma Reeve

/s/ Meeta Chatterjee

Director

February 28, 2024

Meeta Chatterjee, Ph.D.

/s/ Bernadette Connaughton

Director

February 28, 2024

Bernadette Connaughton

/s/ Andrew Hirsch

Director

February 28, 2024

Andrew Hirsch

/s/ Jessica Hopfield

Director

February 28, 2024

Jessica Hopfield, Ph.D.

/s/ Elliott Levy

Director

February 28, 2024

Elliott Levy, M.D.

/s/ David Scadden

Director

February 28, 2024

David Scadden, M.D.

/s/ Akshay K. Vaishnaw

Director

February 28, 2024

Akshay K. Vaishnaw, M.D., Ph.D.


Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)						46-4097528 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

11 Hurley Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts						02141
(Address of principal executive offices)						(Zip Code)


Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share	EDIT	The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC


Large accelerated filer	x	Accelerated filer	o

Non-accelerated filer	o	Smaller reporting company	o

		Emerging growth company	o


PART I		6

Item 1.	Business	6
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	49
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	99
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	99
Item 2.	Properties	100
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	100
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	100

PART II		101

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	101
Item 6.	[Reserved]	102
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	102
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	112
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	113
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	144
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	144
Item 9B.	Other Information	146
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	146

PART III		146

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	146
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	147
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	147
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	147
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	147

PART IV		148

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	148
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	151

SIGNATURES		152


	Year Ended December 31,				Dollar Change		Percentage Change
	2023		2022
Employee related expenses	$	47,363	$	47,320	$	43	— %
External research and development expenses	53,321		79,822		(26,501)		(33) %
Facility expenses	21,447		21,032		415		2 %
Stock-based compensation expenses	9,842		12,425		(2,583)		(21) %
Sublicense and license fees	35,011		5,334		29,677		n/m
Other expenses	10,667		9,025		1,642		18 %
Total research and development expenses	$	177,651	$	174,958	$	2,693	2 %


x			ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


o			TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (PCAOB ID 42)			114
Consolidated Balance Sheets			116
Consolidated Statements of Operations			117
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss			118
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity			119
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows			120
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements			121


Asset:						Estimated Useful life
Labratory and manufacturing equipment						5 years
Computer equipment and software						3 years
Furniture and equipment						5 years
Leasehold improvements						Shorter of useful life or remaining lease term


December 31, 2023	Amortized Cost		Allowance for Credit Losses		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses		Fair Value
Cash equivalents and marketable securities:
Money market funds	$	123,652	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	123,652
U.S. Treasuries	168,858		—		611				169,469
Government agency securities	103,507		—		—		(327)		103,180

Corporate notes/bonds	30,920		—		—		(86)		30,834
Total	$	426,937	$	—	$	611	$	(413)	$	427,135


December 31, 2022	Amortized Cost		Allowance for Credit Losses		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses		Fair Value
Cash equivalents and marketable securities:
Money market funds	$	141,522	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	141,522
U.S. Treasuries	50,019		—		3		(229)		49,793
Government agency securities	161,902		—		11		(2,556)		159,357
Commercial paper	29,954		—		3		(141)		29,816
Corporate notes/bonds	57,575		—		2		(694)		56,883
Total	$	440,972	$	—	$	19	$	(3,620)	$	437,371


Financial Assets	December 31, 2023		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Cash equivalents:
Money market funds	$	123,652	$	123,652	$	—	$	—
Marketable securities:
Government agency securities	103,180		—		103,180		—
Corporate bonds	30,834		—		30,834		—
U.S. Treasuries	169,469		169,469		—		—
Restricted cash and other non-current assets:
Money market funds	3,877		3,877		—		—
Total financial assets	$	431,012	$	296,998	$	134,014	$	—


Financial Assets	December 31, 2022		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Cash equivalents:
Money market funds	$	141,522	$	141,522	$	—	$	—
Marketable securities:
Government agency securities	159,357		—		159,357		—
Corporate bonds	56,883		—		56,883		—
U.S. Treasuries	49,793		49,793		—		—
Commercial paper	29,816		—		29,816		—
Restricted cash and other non-current assets:
Money market funds	3,877		3,877		—		—
Total financial assets	$	441,248	$	195,192	$	246,056	$	—


	As of
	December 31, 2023		December 31, 2022
Laboratory and manufacturing equipment	$	25,043	$	24,407
Leasehold improvements	9,648		9,761
Construction-in-progress	2,060		1,573
Computer equipment	1,062		875
Furniture and office equipment	264		264
Software	215		215
Total property and equipment	38,292		37,095
Less: accumulated depreciation	(26,260)		(21,526)
Property and equipment, net	$	12,032	$	15,569


	As of December 31,
	2023		2022
External research and development expenses	$	16,204	$	16,452
Employee related expenses	11,280		10,140
Sublicense and license fees	5,063		559
Intellectual property and patent related fees	983		1,809
Professional service expenses	750		1,260
Other expenses	283		1,076
Total accrued expenses	$	34,563	$	31,296


	Shares	Weighted Average Exercise Price		Remaining Contractual Life (years)	Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)
Outstanding at December 31, 2022	5,276,148	$	23.99	8.00	$	402
Granted	2,393,380	$	8.70
Exercised	(6,587)	$	6.14
Cancelled	(1,513,296)	$	30.45
Outstanding at December 31, 2023	6,149,645	$	16.47	6.89	$	3,195
Exercisable at December 31, 2023	2,708,255	$	22.27	5.39	$	773


Maturity of lease liabilities:	Year Ended December 31, 2023
2024	$	14,847
2025	$	8,391
2026	$	7,134
2027	$	7,076
2028	$	6,000
Thereafter	$	—
Total minimum lease payments	$	43,448
Less: imputed interest	$	(6,912)
Total operating lease liabilities at December 31, 2023	$	36,536


For the year ended December 31, 2023	Balance at December 31, 2022		Additions		Deductions		Balance at December 31, 2023
Accounts receivable	$	5,145	$	14,864	$	(9,822)	$	10,187
Contract liabilities:
Deferred revenue	$	68,888	$	—	$	—	$	68,888


	As of December 31,
	2023	2022
Shares reserved for outstanding stock option awards under the 2013 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended	115,942	143,055
Shares reserved for outstanding stock option awards and restricted stock units under the 2015 Stock Incentive Plan	6,450,615	5,253,299
Shares reserved for outstanding inducement stock option award and restricted stock units	1,690,235	1,378,864
Remaining shares reserved, but unissued, for future awards under the 2015 Stock Incentive Plan	9,100,247	7,812,540
Remaining shares reserved, but unissued, for future awards under the 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan	3,185,493	3,300,853
	20,542,532	17,888,611


	Shares	Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Unvested restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards as of December 31, 2022	1,499,070	$	18.70
Issued	1,375,602	$	8.70
Vested	(297,934)	$	20.08
Forfeited	(469,591)	$	18.77
Unvested restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards as of December 31, 2023	2,107,147	$	11.96


	Year Ended December 31, 2023
Balance as of December 31, 2022	$	11,797
Gross increases for tax positions related to current year	1,384
Gross increases for tax positions related to prior year	478

Balance as of December 31, 2023	$	13,659


	EDITAS MEDICINE, INC.

Dated: February 28, 2024	By:	/s/ Gilmore O’Neill
		Gilmore O’Neill
		Principal Executive Officer


Name of optionee (the “Participant”):
Grant Date:
Number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock subject to this option (“Shares”):
Option exercise price per Share:1
Number, if any, of Shares that vest immediately on the grant date:
Shares that are subject to vesting schedule:
Vesting Start Date:
Final Exercise Date: 2





All vesting is dependent on the Participant remaining an Eligible Participant, as provided herein.


			EDITAS MEDICINE, INC.
Signature of Participant
Street Address			By: Name of Officer Title:
City/State/Zip Code


Name of Participant (the “Participant”):
Grant Date:
Number of shares of the restricted common stock, $0.0001 par value per share (the “Common Stock”) awarded (“Restricted Shares”):
Vesting Start Date:


Vesting Date			Number of Shares that Vest

Except as provided herein, all vesting is dependent on the Participant remaining an Eligible Participant on each applicable Vesting Date.


EDITAS MEDICINE, INC. By: __________________________ Name: Title:			PARTICIPANT __________________________ Name: Address:


Name of recipient (the “Participant”):
Grant Date:
Number of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) granted:
Number, if any, of RSUs that vest immediately on the grant date:
RSUs that are subject to vesting schedule:
Vesting Start Date:



Participant						Editas Medicine, Inc.



						By:
[Name]						Name:
						Title:


Street Address


City/State/Zip Code


PARTICIPANT:
____________________________ [_________]
Address:			___________________
			___________________ ___________________


Name of recipient (the “Participant”):			[__________]
Grant Date:			[__________]
Number of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) granted:			[__________]
Number, if any, of RSUs that vest immediately on the grant date:			[__________]
RSUs that are subject to vesting schedule:			[__________]
Vesting Start Date:			[__________]



	Member	Chairman
	Annual Fee	Annual Fee
Board of Directors	$40,000	$75,000
Audit Committee	$8,750	$18,750
Organization, Leadership and Compensation Committee	$7,500	$15,000
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee	$5,000	$10,000
Science and Technology Committee	$5,000	$10,000


Date: February 28, 2024	By:	/s/ Gilmore O’Neill
		Gilmore O’Neill
		Chief Executive Officer
		Principal Executive Officer

Cover - USD ($)	12 Months Ended
Cover - USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2023	Feb. 23, 2024	Jun. 30, 2023
Cover [Abstract]
Document Type	10-K
Document Annual Report	true
Document Period End Date	Dec. 31, 2023
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Document Transition Report	false
Entity File Number	001-37687
Entity Registrant Name	EDITAS MEDICINE, INC.
Entity Incorporation, State or Country Code	DE
Entity Tax Identification Number	46-4097528
Entity Address, Address Line One	11 Hurley Street
Entity Address, City or Town	Cambridge
Entity Address, State or Province	MA
Entity Address, Postal Zip Code	02141
City Area Code	617
Local Phone Number	401-9000
Title of 12(b) Security	Common Stock
Trading Symbol	EDIT
Security Exchange Name	NASDAQ
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	Yes
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Interactive Data Current	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Small Business	false
Entity Emerging Growth Company	false
ICFR Auditor Attestation Flag	true
Document Financial Statement Error Correction [Flag]	false
Entity Shell Company	false
Entity Public Float			$ 671,127,999
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		81,813,850
Documents Incorporated by Reference	Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2023
Document Fiscal Period Focus	FY
Entity Central Index Key	0001650664
Amendment Flag	false

Audit Information	12 Months Ended
Audit Information	Dec. 31, 2023
Audit Information [Abstract]
Auditor Name	Ernst & Young LLP
Auditor Firm ID	42
Auditor Location	Boston, Massachusetts