Arbutus Biopharma Corp 10-K

Item 1. Business Overview Arbutus Biopharma Corporation (“Arbutus”, the “Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our”) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company leveraging its extensive virology expertise to develop novel therapeutics that target specific viral diseases. Our current focus areas include Hepatitis B virus (“HBV”), SARS-CoV-2, and other coronaviruses. To address HBV, we are developing an RNA interference (“RNAi”) therapeutic, an oral PD-L1 inhibitor, and an oral RNA destabilizer to potentially identify a combination regimen with the aim of providing a functional cure for patients with chronic HBV infection (“cHBV”) by suppressing viral replication, reducing surface antigen and reawakening the immune system. We believe our lead compound, AB-729, is the only RNAi therapeutic with evidence of immune re-awakening. AB-729 is currently being evaluated in multiple phase 2 clinical trials. We also have an ongoing drug discovery and development program directed to identifying novel, orally active agents for treating coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, where we have nominated a compound and have begun IND-enabling pre-clinical studies. In addition, we are also exploring oncology applications for our internal PD-L1 portfolio. Strategy The core elements of our strategy include: • Developing a broad portfolio of compounds that target cHBV. Our HBV product pipeline includes a subcutaneously-delivered RNAi therapeutic, an oral HBV RNA destabilizer compound and an oral PD-L1 inhibitor. We believe that a combination of compounds that can suppress HBV DNA replication and hepatitis B surface antigen (“HBsAg”) expression as well as reawaken patients’ HBV-specific immune response would address the most important elements to achieving a functional cure. We define a functional cure as unquantifiable plasma HBV DNA and HBsAg levels more than six months after discontinuation of all treatment, with or without quantifiable anti-HBsAg antibodies. AB-729 is our proprietary subcutaneously-delivered RNAi therapeutic product candidate that suppresses all HBV antigens, including HBsAg expression, which is thought to be a key prerequisite to enable reawakening of a patient’s immune system to respond to HBV. AB-729 is currently in two Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trials in combination with other agents with potentially complementary mechanisms of action and we are also continuing to follow subjects from our Phase 1a/1b clinical trial (“AB-729-001”). Preliminary data from AB-729-001 has shown that treatment with AB-729 provided robust and comparable HBsAg declines regardless of dose, dosing interval or patient characteristics and was generally safe and well-tolerated after completing dosing in 41 subjects. Preliminary data also suggests that treatment with AB-729 increased HBV-specific immune responses and, in a small number of subjects who discontinued both AB-729 and nucleos(t)ide analogue (“NA”) therapy, a sustained reduction in HBsAg and HBV DNA persisted after stopping AB-729. The clinical data for AB-729 continues to support its development as a potential cornerstone agent for the treatment of cHBV infection. AB-101 is our oral PD-L1 inhibitor that has the potential to reawaken patients’ HBV-specific immune response by inhibiting PD-L1. Preclinical data in an HBV mouse model was presented at the 2022 AASLD Liver Meeting showing that combination treatment with AB-101 and an HBV-targeting GalNAc-siRNA agent resulted in activation and increased frequency of HBV-specific T-cells and greater anti-HBsAg antibody production. This favorable preclinical profile supports further development of AB-101 as a therapeutic modality for cHBV treatment and we anticipate initiating a Phase 1 healthy subject clinical trial with AB-101 in the first half of 2023. We are also exploring potential oncology applications for our internal PD-L1 portfolio. AB-161 is our next-generation oral HBV specific RNA destabilizer. We have conducted extensive non-clinical safety evaluations with AB-161 that gives us confidence in this molecule’s ability to circumvent the peripheral neuropathy findings seen in non-clinical safety studies with our first-generation oral RNA destabilizer, AB-452. We recently presented preclinical data at the Discovery on Target Conference showing that AB-161 reduced HBV RNA and 8 HBsAg in multiple preclinical models, with favorable liver centricity and lack of observed peripheral neuropathy. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1 healthy subject clinical trial with AB-161 in the first half of 2023. • Combining therapeutic product candidates with complementary mechanisms of action to find a functional cure for people with cHBV. We believe that our proprietary product candidates AB-729, AB-101 and AB-161 may provide our first proprietary combination therapy for patients with cHBV. In-line with our strategy to position AB-729 as a potential cornerstone therapeutic in future HBV combination regimens, and to help guide future development of combination therapies of AB-729 with other compounds from our proprietary HBV portfolio, we are evaluating AB-729 in combination with other agents with potentially complementary mechanisms of action, including the following: • AB-729 in combination with ongoing standard-of-care NA therapy and short courses of Peg-IFNα-2a in subjects with cHBV in a Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial (“AB-729-201”). Preliminary data from the lead-in phase of this clinical trial further validated AB-729’s potential to reduce HBsAg in cHBV patients. • AB-729 in combination with Vaccitech plc’s (“Vaccitech”) VTP-300, a proprietary T-cell stimulating antigen-specific immunotherapeutic, and NA therapy for the treatment of subjects with cHBV in a Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial (“AB-729-202”). We recently amended the clinical trial to include an additional arm with an approved PD-1 monoclonal antibody inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo ® ). • Advancing small molecule antiviral product candidates to treat COVID-19 and future coronavirus outbreaks. This program is focused on the discovery and development of new molecular entities for treating coronaviruses, including COVID-19, that address specific viral targets including the nsp5 viral protease (“M pro ”) and the nsp12 viral polymerase. • In the fourth quarter of 2022, we nominated AB-343 as our lead coronavirus drug candidate that inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 M pro , a validated target for the treatment of COVID-19 and potential future coronavirus outbreaks. In our pre-clinical research conducted to date, AB-343 has shown pan-coronavirus antiviral activity, no reduction in potency against known SARS-CoV-2 variants, robust activity against SARS-CoV-2 M pro resistant strains, and a favorable drug-drug interaction profile with no need for ritonavir boosting. We are advancing AB-343 into IND-enabling studies. We are also continuing lead optimization activities for an nsp12 viral polymerase, which could potentially be combined with AB-343 to achieve better patient treatment outcomes and for use in prophylactic settings.   Background on HBV Hepatitis B is a potentially life-threatening liver infection caused by HBV. HBV can cause chronic infection which leads to a higher risk of death from cirrhosis and liver cancer. cHBV represents a significant unmet medical need. There are HBV vaccines approved by the FDA, which are indicated for the prevention of infection caused by HBV. However, the World Health Organization estimates that over 290 million people worldwide suffer from cHBV, while other estimates indicate that approximately 2.4 million people in the United States suffer from cHBV. Even with the availability of effective vaccines and current treatment options, approximately 820,000 people die every year from complications related to cHBV. We believe there is a compelling market opportunity for an HBV curative regimen. Currently, an estimated 30.4 million (10.5%) of a total of over 290 million people worldwide with cHBV are diagnosed and approximately 6.6 million (2.3%) are on treatment. We believe that the introduction of an HBV curative regimen with a finite duration would substantially increase diagnosis and treatment rates for people with cHBV. Current treatments and their limitations Today’s current treatment options for cHBV include pegylated interferon-α regimens (“Peg-IFNα”) and NA therapies. Peg-IFNα, a synthetic version of a substance produced by the body to fight infection, is administered by injection and has numerous side effects including flu-like symptoms and depression. NA therapies are oral antiviral medications which, when taken chronically, reduce HBV virus replication and inflammation and significantly reduce HBV DNA in the blood. Oral NA 9 therapies have become the standard-of-care for HBV treatment, mainly due to their ability to drive viral load to undetectable levels in the serum of patients, their single pill once-a-day dosing and favorable safety profile. However, in most cases, once Peg-IFNα and NA therapies are stopped, virus replication resumes and liver inflammation and fibrosis may still progress. While these treatments reduce viral load, less than 5% of patients are functionally cured after a finite treatment duration. With such low cure rates, most patients with cHBV are required to take NA therapy daily for the rest of their lives. Background on Coronaviruses Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that range from the common cold to more severe diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19. COVID-19 has caused approximately 7.2 million deaths globally according to an analysis by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). COVID-19 spreads when an infected person breathes out droplets and very small particles that contain the virus. As we strive to identify and develop new antiviral small molecules to treat COVID-19 and future coronavirus outbreaks, we have focused our research efforts on two essential targets critical for replication across all coronaviruses – nsp5 protease and nsp12 polymerase. Current treatments and their limitations Today’s current treatment options for COVID-19 include multiple vaccines, anti-viral drugs and antibodies to prevent or treat the disease. Despite the high efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, it is estimated that more than 25% of the world’s population remains unvaccinated against COVID-19. Today’s anti-viral treatments have certain limitations, including a short time frame to begin treatment, potential drug-drug interactions due to ritonavir boosting and frequently occurring side effects. Patients continue to be hospitalized and die from COVID-19. In addition to the availability of vaccines and other treatments, new effective and safe therapies are needed to successfully combat the COVID-19 pandemic and any future coronavirus outbreaks. Our Product Candidates Our product pipeline includes multiple product candidates that target various steps in the HBV viral lifecycle and pan-coronavirus compounds that target essential viral targets for replication. Our product pipeline consists of the following programs: 10 We continue to explore expansion opportunities for our pipeline through internal discovery and development activities and through potential strategic alliances. RNAi therapeutic (AB-729) RNAi therapeutics represent a significant advancement in drug development. RNAi therapeutics utilize a natural pathway within cells to silence genes by eliminating the disease-causing proteins that they code for. We are developing RNAi therapeutics that are designed to reduce HBsAg expression and other HBV antigens in people with cHBV. Reducing HBsAg is widely believed to be a key prerequisite to enable a patient’s immune system to reawaken and respond against the virus. AB-729 is a subcutaneously-delivered RNAi single-trigger therapeutic targeted to hepatocytes using our proprietary covalently conjugated GalNAc delivery technology. AB-729 reduces all HBV antigens and inhibits viral replication. Phase 1a/1b single- and multiple-dose clinical trial (AB-729-001) In this three-part clinical trial, we investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of single- and multi-doses of AB-729 in healthy subjects and in cHBV patients with the goal of identifying the most appropriate doses and dosing intervals to take forward into Phase 2 clinical development. The first two parts evaluated single ascending doses of AB-729 in healthy subjects and in patients with cHBV, respectively. Data showed that a 60mg or 90mg single dose of AB-729 results in robust HBsAg and HBV DNA declines in HBV DNA positive patients. Part 3 of the trial dosed HBV DNA negative/positive patients with 60mg or 90mg of AB-729 every 4, 8 or twelve weeks. Dosing of patients in Part 3 has been completed and we are continuing to follow these patients. Data from Part 3 of the AB-729-001 clinical trial was presented at the 2022 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) International Liver Congress™ (ILC) in June 2022 and showed that repeat dosing of 60mg and 90mg of AB-729 in 41 patients resulted in robust and comparable HBsAg declines in HBeAg positive/negative and HBV DNA positive/negative patients at week 48 (1.89 to 2.15 log10 decline in HBsAg). Fifty percent of the patients (16 out of 32) maintained HBsAg levels below 100 IU/mL 24 weeks after their last dose of AB-729. Patients treated with AB-729 experienced an increase in HBV-specific T-cells activation and a decrease in exhausted T-cells. In this trial, AB-729 was generally safe and well-tolerated. At the AASLD Liver Meeting in November 2022, we presented additional data from Part 3 of the AB-729-001 clinical trial, which included nine patients who had had previously completed 48 weeks of treatment with AB-729, and 24 weeks later met protocol-defined criteria to also stop NA therapy. These nine patients had completed 12 to 44 weeks of follow-up after discontinuing their NA therapy. None had met the protocol-defined criteria to restart NA therapy and there was no evidence of clinical or biochemical relapse. HBsAg levels remained at 1.05 log10 to 2.35 log10 below pre-trial levels in all nine patients. Three patients experienced transient HBV DNA elevations that spontaneously resolved without intervention, which further supports AB-729’s potential for immunological control. One patient restarted NA therapy at the investigator’s request after the week 20 visit; no alanine transaminase (“ALT”) elevation or safety signals were observed. There were no adverse events (“AEs”) reported and no ALT flares were observed in the clinical trial. Recently, one of the eight remaining patients met the protocol-defined HBV DNA criteria to restart NA therapy without evidence of any ALT flare. We are continuing to follow the seven patients who remain off NA therapy and anticipate reporting additional off-treatment data in the first half of 2023. The new clinical data for AB-729 continues to support its development as a potential cornerstone agent for the treatment of cHBV infection. The efficacy and safety data for AB-729, derived from up to one year of dosing, supported our view that 60 mg every 8 weeks was an appropriate dose to move forward in our Phase 2a clinical trials. To advance our efforts to position AB-729 as a potential cornerstone therapeutic in future HBV combination regimens, we are evaluating AB-729 in several Phase 2a proof-of-concept combination clinical trials with other agents with potentially complementary mechanisms of action, some via clinical collaborations with other companies as described below. 11 Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial to evaluate AB-729 in combination with Peg-IFNα-2a (AB-729-201) We have completed enrollment in a randomized, open label, multicenter Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial investigating the safety and antiviral activity of AB-729 in combination with ongoing NA therapy and short courses of Peg-IFNα-2a in 43 stably NA-suppressed, HBeAg negative, non-cirrhotic patients with cHBV. After 24-weeks of dosing with AB-729 (60mg every 8 weeks), patients are randomized into one of four arms to receive ongoing NA therapy plus Peg-IFNα-2a for either 12 or 24 weeks, with or without additional doses of AB-729. After completion of the assigned Peg-IFNα-2a treatment period, all patients will remain on NA therapy for the initial 24-week follow-up period, and will then discontinue NA treatment, provided they meet protocol-defined stopping criteria. Patients who stop NA therapy will enter an intensive follow-up period for 48 weeks. Preliminary data from the lead-in phase of the trial further validated AB-729’s potential to reduce HBsAg. For the first 15 patients who reached week 16 of treatment and received two doses of AB-729 plus NA therapy, the mean HBsAg decline was 1.51 log10, comparable to the decline observed at the same timepoint in the Phase 1b clinical trial AB-729-001 (1.56 log10), while continuing to exhibit a generally safe and well-tolerated profile. We anticipate providing preliminary data from patients who have received doses of Peg-IFNα-2a in the first half of 2023. Collaboration with Vaccitech (AB-729-202) Through a clinical collaboration agreement with Vaccitech that we entered into in July 2021, we are enrolling patients in AB-729-202, a Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial evaluating the safety, antiviral activity and immunogenicity of Vaccitech’s VTP-300, a proprietary T-cell stimulating antigen-specific immunotherapeutic, administered after AB-729 in NA-suppressed patients with cHBV. The trial is designed to enroll 40 NA-suppressed, HBeAg negative or positive, non-cirrhotic cHBV patients. All patients will receive AB-729 (60mg every 8 weeks) plus NA therapy for 24 weeks. At week 24, treatment with AB-729 will stop. Patients will continue only their NA therapy and will be randomized to receive VTP-300 or placebo at Week 26, Week 30 and at Week 38 (if protocol-defined eligibility is met). At week 48, all patients will be evaluated for eligibility to discontinue NA therapy and will be followed for an additional 24-48 weeks. We anticipate providing preliminary data from patients who received AB-729, NA therapy and VTP-300 in the second half of 2023. We recently amended the AB-729-202 protocol to include an additional arm with an approved PD-1 inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo®). Upon regulatory approval of the amendment, 20 patients will receive AB-729 (60mg every 8 weeks) plus NA therapy for 24 weeks, followed by administration of VTP-300 plus a low dose of nivolumab in conjunction with the booster dose(s) only while remaining on their NA therapy. At week 48, all patients will be evaluated for eligibility to discontinue NA therapy, and will be followed for an additional 24-48 weeks. We anticipate dosing the first patient in this arm in the first half of 2023, subject to regulatory approval. This clinical trial is being managed by us, subject to oversight by a joint development committee comprised of representatives from both companies. We and Vaccitech retain full rights to our respective product candidates and will split all costs associated with the clinical trial. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties intend to undertake a larger Phase 2b clinical trial depending on the results of the initial Phase 2a clinical trial. Collaboration with Assembly Through a clinical collaboration agreement with Assembly that we entered into in August 2020, Assembly conducted a clinical trial evaluating AB-729 in combination with its first-generation HBV core inhibitor (capsid inhibitor) candidate VBR and standard-of-care NA therapy for the treatment of cHBV in HBeAg negative patients with cHBV. The randomized, multi-center, open-label Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial was designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of the triple combination of AB-729, VBR, and an NA (n=32) compared to the dual combinations of VBR with an NA (n=16) and AB-729 with an NA (n=17). Patients were dosed for 48 weeks with AB-729 (60mg subcutaneously every 8 weeks) and/or VBR (300mg orally once daily), with a 48-week follow-up period. At week 48, all patients were to be evaluated for eligibility to discontinue NA therapy. In July 2022, Assembly announced its plans to discontinue development of VBR. Despite this, in consultation with Assembly, we continued this Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial in order to fully and accurately assess the results. Assembly completed enrollment in the clinical trial and preliminary data were presented at the 2022 AASLD Liver 12 Meeting, which indicated that adding VBR to AB-729 and NA therapy does not positively or negatively impact the reduction of HBsAg compared to AB-729 and NA therapy alone. Accordingly, we have mutually agreed to discontinue the clinical trial following completion of the final, on-treatment visit at week 48. All regimens were generally safe and well-tolerated in this trial. Both parties shared in the costs of the collaboration. Except to the extent necessary to carry out Assembly’s responsibilities with respect to the collaboration trial, we have not provided any license grant to Assembly for use of AB-729. Oral PD-L1 Inhibitor (AB-101) PD-L1 inhibitors complement our pipeline of agents and could potentially be an important part of a combination therapy for the treatment of HBV by reawakening the immune system. Highly functional HBV-specific T cells within our immune system are believed to be required for long-term HBV viral resolution. However, HBV-specific T cells become functionally defective, and greatly reduced in their frequency during cHBV. One approach to boost HBV-specific T cells is to prevent PD-L1 proteins from binding to PD-1 and thus inhibiting the HBV-specific immune function of T cells. Immune checkpoints such as PD-1/PD-L1 play an important role in the induction and maintenance of immune tolerance and in T-cell activation. AB-101 is our oral PD-L1 inhibitor candidate that we believe will allow for controlled checkpoint blockade while minimizing the systemic safety issues typically seen with checkpoint antibody therapies. Preclinical data generated thus far indicates that AB-101 mediates activation and reinvigoration of HBV-specific T-cells from cHBV patients. In June 2022, we presented a poster at the 2022 EASL ILC highlighting data from a study that was designed to assess the preclinical activity of AB-101 and the compound’s ability to reinvigorate patient HBV-specific T-cells. Studies were conducted using a transgenic MC38 tumor mouse model and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from cHBV patients. The data presented showed that once daily oral administration of AB-101 resulted in profound tumor reduction that was associated with T-cell activation. In addition, AB-101 activates and reinvigorates HBV-specific T-cells in vitro. Additionally, preclinical data in an HBV mouse model was presented at the 2022 AASLD Liver Meeting showing that monotherapy with AB-101 reduced PD-L1 in liver immune cells, confirming liver target engagement of the compound. Combination treatment with AB-101 and an HBV-targeting GalNAc-siRNA agent resulted in activation and increased frequency of HBV-specific T-cells and greater anti-HBsAg antibody production. This favorable preclinical profile supports further development of AB-101 as a therapeutic modality for cHBV treatment. We believe AB-101, when used in combination with other approved and investigational agents, could potentially lead to a functional cure in HBV chronically infected patients. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1 healthy subject clinical trial with AB-101 in the first half of 2023 with data from the single-ascending dose portion of the clinical trial expected in the second half of 2023. We are also exploring potential oncology applications for our internal PD-L1 portfolio. Preclinical data was selected for publication at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in June 2022 showing that our oral small-molecule PD-L1 inhibitors in development, which possess a novel mechanism of action, have the ability to mediate T-cell activation in primary human immune cells. The anti-tumor efficacy seen in vivo was comparable to anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The data is published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Oral HBV RNA Destabilizer (AB-161) HBV RNA destabilizers are small molecule orally available agents that cause the destabilization and ultimate degradation of HBV RNAs. Mechanistically, RNA destabilizers target the host proteins PAPD5/7, which are involved in regulating the stability of HBV RNA transcripts.  In doing so, RNA destabilizers lead to the selective degradation of HBV RNAs, thus reducing HBsAg levels and inhibiting viral replication. To provide a proprietary all-oral treatment regimen for patients with cHBV, we believe inclusion of a small molecule RNA destabilizer is key. HBV RNA destabilizers have the potential to complement or replace subcutaneously delivered RNAi agents, such as AB-729. AB-161 is our next-generation oral small molecule RNA destabilizer specifically designed to target the liver. We have conducted extensive non-clinical safety evaluations with AB-161 that provide confidence in this molecule’s ability to circumvent the peripheral neuropathy findings seen in non-clinical safety studies with our first-generation oral RNA destabilizer, AB-452. We recently presented preclinical data at the 2022 Discovery on Target Conference showing that AB-161 reduced HBV RNA and HBsAg in multiple preclinical models, with favorable liver centricity and lack of observed peripheral neuropathy. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1 healthy subject clinical trial with AB-161 in the first half of 2023 with single-ascending dose data expected in the second half of 2023. 13 Coronavirus Program While our core mission is to find a cure for HBV, the magnitude of the coronavirus pandemic is undeniable. Given our science team’s proven expertise in the discovery of new antiviral therapies, in 2020 we initiated a drug discovery effort for treating coronaviruses, including COVID-19. To that end, we have assembled an internal team of expert scientists under the direction of our Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Michael Sofia, to identify novel small molecule therapies to treat COVID-19 and future coronavirus outbreaks. Dr. Sofia, who was awarded the Lasker-DeBakey Award for his discovery of sofosbuvir, brings extensive antiviral drug discovery experience to this program. As we strive to identify and develop new antiviral small molecules to treat COVID-19 and future coronavirus outbreaks, we have focused our research efforts on two essential targets critical for replication across all coronaviruses – nsp5 protease and nsp12 polymerase. These targets are essential viral proteins that our science team has experience in targeting. Oral M pro Inhibitor (AB-343) AB-343 is our lead coronavirus drug candidate that inhibits M pro . In our pre-clinical research conducted to date, AB-343 has shown pan-coronavirus antiviral activity, no reduction in potency against known SARS-CoV-2 variants, robust activity against SARS-CoV-2 M pro resistant strains, and a favorable drug-drug interaction profile with no need for ritonavir boosting. We anticipate completing IND-enabling studies and initiating a Phase 1 clinical trial with AB-343 in the second half of 2023. We also intend to nominate a nsp12 clinical candidate and initiate IND-enabling studies in the second half of 2023. An nsp12 viral polymerase could potentially be combined with AB-343 to achieve better patient treatment outcomes and for use in prophylactic settings.  Collaboration with X-Chem, Inc. and Proteros biostructures GmbH In March 2021, we entered into a discovery research and license agreement, as amended, with X-Chem, Inc. (“X-Chem”) and Proteros biostructures GmbH (“Proteros”) to focus on the discovery of novel inhibitors targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nsp5 main protease (M pro ). The agreement is designed to accelerate the development of pan-coronavirus agents to treat COVID-19 and potential future coronavirus outbreaks. This collaboration brought together our expertise in the discovery and development of antiviral agents with X-Chem’s industry leading DNA-encoded library (DEL) technology and Proteros’ protein sciences, biophysics and structural biology capabilities and provides important synergies to potentially identify safe and effective therapies against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The collaboration allows for the rapid screening of one of the largest small molecule libraries against M pro (an essential protein required for the virus to replicate itself) and the use of state-of-the-art structure guided methods to rapidly optimize M pro inhibitors to progress to clinical candidates. The agreement provides for payments by us to X-Chem and Proteros upon satisfaction of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones, as well as royalties on sales. Through this collaboration, we identified and obtained a worldwide exclusive license to several molecules that inhibit M pro , a validated target for the treatment of COVID-19 and potential future coronavirus outbreaks. COVID-19 Impact The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in and will likely continue to result in significant disruptions to businesses. Measures implemented around the world in attempts to slow the spread of COVID-19 have had, and will likely continue to have, a major impact on clinical development, at least in the near-term, including shortages and delays in the supply chain and prohibitions in certain countries on enrolling patients in new clinical trials. While we have been able to progress with our clinical and pre-clinical activities to date, it is not possible to predict if the COVID-19 pandemic will materially impact our plans and timelines in the future. Other Collaborations, Royalty Entitlements and Intellectual Property Litigation Collaboration with Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Qilu”) In December 2021, we entered into a technology transfer and license agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Qilu, pursuant to which we granted Qilu a sublicensable, royalty-bearing license, under certain intellectual property owned by us, which is non-exclusive as to development and manufacturing and exclusive with respect to commercialization of AB-729, including 14 pharmaceutical products that include AB-729, for the treatment or prevention of hepatitis B in China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan (the “Territory”). In partial consideration for the rights granted by us, Qilu paid us a one-time upfront cash payment of $40 million on January 5, 2022 and agreed to pay us milestone payments totaling up to $245 million, net of withholding taxes, upon the achievement of certain technology transfer, development, regulatory and commercialization milestones. Qilu also agreed to pay us double digit royalties into the low twenties percent based upon annual net sales of AB-729 in the Territory. The royalties are payable on a product-by-product and region-by-region basis, subject to certain limitations. Qilu is responsible for all costs related to developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, and commercializing AB-729 for the treatment or prevention of hepatitis B in the Territory. Qilu is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, seek regulatory approval for, and commercialize at least one AB-729 product candidate in the Territory. A joint development committee has been established between us and Qilu to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans. Both parties also have entered into a supply agreement and related quality agreement pursuant to which we will manufacture or have manufactured and supply Qilu with all quantities of AB-729 necessary for Qilu to develop and commercialize in the Territory until we have completed manufacturing technology transfer to Qilu and Qilu has received all approvals required for it or its designated contract manufacturing organization to manufacture AB-729 in the Territory. Concurrent with the execution of the License Agreement, we entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (the “Share Purchase Agreement”) with Anchor Life Limited, a company established pursuant to the applicable laws and regulations of Hong Kong and an affiliate of Qilu (the “Investor”), pursuant to which the Investor purchased 3,579,952 of our common shares, without par value (the “Common Shares”), at a purchase price of USD $4.19 per share, which was a 15% premium on the thirty-day average closing price of the Common Shares as of the close of trading on December 10, 2021 (the “Share Transaction”). We received $15.0 million of gross proceeds from the Share Transaction on January 6, 2022. The Common Shares sold to the Investor in the Share Transaction represented approximately 2.5% of the Common Shares outstanding immediately prior to the execution of the Share Purchase Agreement. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Alnylam”) and Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc. (“Acuitas”) We have two royalty entitlements to Alnylam’s global net sales of ONPATTRO. In 2012, we entered into a license agreement with Alnylam that entitles Alnylam to develop and commercialize products with our lipid nanoparticle (“LNP”) delivery technology. Alnylam’s ONPATTRO, which represents the first approved application of our LNP technology, was approved by the United States FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) during the third quarter of 2018 and was launched by Alnylam immediately upon approval in the United States. Under the terms of this license agreement, we are entitled to tiered royalty payments on global net sales of ONPATTRO ranging from 1.00% - 2.33% after offsets, with the highest tier applicable to annual net sales above $500 million. This royalty interest was sold to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”), effective as of January 1, 2019, for $20 million in gross proceeds before advisory fees. OMERS will retain this entitlement until it has received $30 million in royalties, at which point 100% of this royalty entitlement on future global net sales of ONPATTRO will revert to us. OMERS has assumed the risk of collecting up to $30 million of future royalty payments from Alnylam and we are not obligated to reimburse OMERS if they fail to collect any such future royalties. If this royalty entitlement reverts to us, it has the potential to provide an active royalty stream or to be otherwise monetized again in full or in part. From the inception of the royalty sale through December 31, 2022, an aggregate of $18.9 million of royalties have been collected by OMERS. We also have rights to a second royalty interest ranging from 0.75% to 1.125% on global net sales of ONPATTRO, with 0.75% applying to sales greater than $500 million, originating from a settlement agreement and subsequent license agreement with Acuitas. This royalty entitlement from Acuitas has been retained by us and was not part of the royalty entitlement sale to OMERS. Genevant Sciences, Ltd. In April 2018, we entered into an agreement with Roivant Sciences Ltd. (“Roivant”), our largest shareholder, to launch Genevant Sciences Ltd. (“Genevant”), a company focused on a broad range of RNA-based therapeutics enabled by our LNP 15 and ligand conjugate delivery technologies. We licensed rights to our LNP and ligand conjugate delivery platforms to Genevant for RNA-based applications outside of HBV, except to the extent certain rights had already been licensed to other third parties (the “Genevant License”). We retained all rights to our LNP and conjugate delivery platforms for HBV. Under the Genevant License, as amended, if a third party sublicensee of intellectual property licensed by Genevant from us commercializes a sublicensed product, we become entitled to receive a specified percentage of certain revenue that may be received by Genevant for such sublicense, including royalties, commercial milestones and other sales-related revenue, or, if less, tiered low single-digit royalties on net sales of the sublicensed product. The specified percentage is 20% in the case of a mere sublicense (i.e., naked sublicense) by Genevant without additional contribution and 14% in the case of a bona fide collaboration with Genevant. Additionally, if Genevant receives proceeds from an action for infringement by any third parties of our intellectual property licensed to Genevant, we would be entitled to receive, after deduction of litigation costs, 20% of the proceeds received by Genevant or, if less, tiered low single-digit royalties on net sales of the infringing product (inclusive of the proceeds from litigation or settlement, which would be treated as net sales). In July 2020, Roivant recapitalized Genevant through an equity investment and conversion of previously issued convertible debt securities held by Roivant. We participated in the recapitalization of Genevant with an equity investment of $2.5 million. In connection with the recapitalization, the three parties entered into an Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement that provides Roivant with substantial control of Genevant. We have a non-voting observer seat on Genevant’s Board of Directors. As of December 31, 2022, we owned approximately 16% of the common equity of Genevant and the carrying value of our investment in Genevant was zero. Our entitlement to receive future royalties or sublicensing revenue from Genevant was not impacted by the recapitalization. Moderna Inter Partes Review Petitions On February 21, 2018 and March 5, 2018, Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (“Moderna”) filed petitions requesting the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of Arbutus United States Patents 9,404,127 (the “’127 Patent”) and 9,364,435 (the “’435 Patent”). In its petitions, Moderna sought to invalidate all claims of each patent based on Moderna’s allegation that the claims are anticipated and/or obvious. We filed a response to Moderna’s petitions on June 14, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) rendered its decision to institute Inter Partes Review of both the ‘127 Patent and the ‘435 Patent. The status of these patents, which collectively represent only a fraction of our extensive LNP patent portfolio, is as follows: ‘127 Patent With respect to the ‘127 Patent, the PTAB held all claims as invalid on September 10, 2019, by reason of anticipatory prior art. However this decision was vacated and sent back (remanded) to the PTAB for a rehearing, pending the Supreme Court’s decision whether to grant certiorari in a different case, United States v. Athrex, Inc. (“US v. Athrex”), the holding of which could impact the findings in the ‘127 Patent matter. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in US v. Athrex on October 13, 2020 (i.e. agreed to review the decision appealed from a lower court). Until the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in US v. Athrex, the ‘127 Patent hearing remained in abeyance, with no decision reached as to the validity of its claims. The Supreme Court decided on the US v. Athrex case on June 21, 2021, following which the Federal Circuit reinstated the appeal sua sponte, requiring the parties to brief how the case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion or for the Appellant to waive the challenge. We elected to waive the challenge and proceed with the appeal at the Federal Circuit. The opening brief was filed on October 25, 2021. Moderna’s responsive brief was filed on February 24, 2022 and our reply brief was filed on April 26, 2022. An oral hearing for this matter was held on November 4, 2022. ‘435 Patent With respect to the ‘435 Patent, the PTAB rendered its decision on September 11, 2019, holding certain claims invalid and upholding other claims as valid. On November 13, 2019, we and Moderna both appealed the decision. Moderna filed its opening brief on May 4, 2020 and we provided our opening and responsive brief on July 27, 2020. Moderna subsequently filed its reply and responsive brief on October 5, 2020, and we filed our reply brief on November 9, 2020. An oral hearing on the 16 ‘435 Patent was held on October 7, 2021. On December 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, leaving intact the PTAB’s holding regarding the validity of certain claims in the ‘435 Patent and the invalidity of other claims in the ‘435 Patent. The decision in the ‘435 appeal was rendered final by mandate on January 25, 2022. ‘069 Patent On January 9, 2019, Moderna filed an additional petition requesting Inter Partes Review of Arbutus United States Patent 8,058,069 (the “’069 Patent”). The PTAB instituted Inter Partes Review of the ‘069 Patent and, on July 23, 2020, issued a decision upholding all claims as valid. On September 23, 2020, Moderna appealed the ‘069 Inter Partes Review decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Moderna filed its opening brief in that appeal on February 23, 2021, we filed our responsive brief on May 11, 2021, and Moderna filed its reply brief on July 1, 2021. An oral hearing on the ‘069 Patent was held on October 7, 2021, in a joint hearing with the hearing regarding the ‘435 patent, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit also issued its ruling with respect to the ‘069 Patent, affirming the PTAB’s finding that all claims were valid. The Federal Circuit’s decision in the ‘069 appeal was rendered final by mandate on January 10, 2022. Moderna and Merck European Oppositions On April 5, 2018, Moderna and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) filed Notices of Opposition to Arbutus’ European patent EP 2279254 (“the ’254 Patent”) with the European Patent Office (“EPO”), requesting that the ‘254 Patent be revoked in its entirety for all contracting states. We filed a response to Moderna and Merck’s oppositions on September 3, 2018. A hearing was conducted before the Opposition Division of the EPO on October 10, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the EPO upheld an auxiliary request adopting the amendment, as put forth by us, of certain claims of the ‘254 Patent. In February 2020 Moderna and Merck filed Notices of Appeal challenging the EPO’s grant of the auxiliary request. Merck filed its notice of appeal on February 24, 2020 and Moderna on February 27, 2020. Both Merck and Moderna perfected their appeals by filing Grounds of Appeal on April 30, 2020. We filed our responses to the appeals on September 18, 2020. On March 22, 2022, Moderna filed further written submissions to which Arbutus and Genevant responded in August 2022. The date for the oral proceedings has not been set. While we are the patent holder, the ‘127 Patent, the ‘435 Patent, the ‘069 Patent and the ‘254 Patent have been licensed to Genevant and are included in the rights licensed by us to Genevant under the Genevant License. Patent Infringement Litigation vs. Moderna On February 28, 2022, we and Genevant filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Moderna, Inc. and a Moderna affiliate seeking damages for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069, 8,492,359, 8,822,668, 9,364,435, 9,504,651, and 11,141,378 in the manufacture and sale of MRNA-1273, Moderna’s vaccine for COVID-19. The patents relate to nucleic acid-lipid particles and lipid vesicles, as well as compositions and methods for their use. The lawsuit does not seek an injunction or otherwise seek to impede the sale, manufacture or distribution of MRNA-1273. However, we seek fair compensation for Moderna’s use of our patented technology that was developed with great effort and at great expense, without which Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine would not have been successful. On May 6, 2022, Moderna filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims “relating to Moderna’s sale and provision of COVID-19 vaccine doses to the U.S. Government.” On November 2, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying Moderna’s motion. On November 30, 2022, Moderna filed its Answer to the Complaint and Counterclaims. Arbutus and Genevant filed their Answer to Moderna’s Counterclaims on December 21, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the U.S. Dept. of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the action. On February 16, 2023, the Court held an Initial Pretrial Conference after which it issued an Order, dated February 16, 2023, ordering that within 14 days of the issuance of the Order, the parties and the U.S. Government are to submit letters regarding the impact of the Governments’ Statement of Interest on the scheduling of the matter. Acuitas Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit On March 18, 2022, Acuitas filed a lawsuit against us and Genevant in the Southern District of New York, asking the court to enter declaratory judgment that Arbutus patent Nos. 8,058,069, 8,492,359, 8,822,668, 9,006,417, 9,364,435, 9,404,127, 17 9,504,651, 9,518,272, and 11,141,378 do not infringe Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine, COMIRNATY, which uses an mRNA lipid provided, under license, by Acuitas. Acuitas also seeks a declaration that each of the listed patents is invalid. On June 24, 2022, we and Genevant sought a pre-motion conference concerning our anticipated motion to dismiss all of Acuitas’ claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The request for a pre-motion conference was granted, but the case was subsequently re-assigned to a new judge who entered an order directing: (i) Acuitas to inform the court whether it intended to file an amended complaint; (ii) that Acuitas must file any amended complaint by a certain date; and (iii) that if Acuitas did not file an amended complaint, we and Genevant must file our motion to dismiss by a certain date. Acuitas filed its amended complaint on September 6, 2022. On October 4, 2022, we and Genevant filed our motion to dismiss the Acuitas action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the lack of a case or controversy. Acuitas filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2022 and we and Genevant filed our reply brief on November 16, 2022. The motion is now fully briefed. No case schedule is yet in place. Potential Additional Payments Related to the Acquisition of Enantigen Therapeutics, Inc. In October 2014, Arbutus Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary, acquired all of the outstanding shares of Enantigen Therapeutics, Inc. (“Enantigen”) pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. The amount paid to Enantigen’s selling shareholders could be up to an additional $102.5 million in sales performance milestones in connection with the sale of the first commercialized product by us for the treatment of HBV, regardless of whether such product is based upon assets acquired under this agreement, and a low single-digit royalty on net sales of such first commercialized HBV product, up to a maximum royalty payment of $1.0 million that, if paid, would be offset against our performance milestone payment obligations. Patents and Proprietary Rights Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies and other know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in licensing United States and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know how, continuing technological innovation and potential in licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. In addition to our proprietary expertise, we own a portfolio of patents and patent applications directed to HBV core/capsid protein assembly inhibitors, HBV surface antigens secretion inhibitors, coronavirus main protease inhibitors, coronavirus Nsp12 inhibitors, LNP inventions, LNP compositions for delivering nucleic acids such as mRNA and RNAi, the formulation and manufacture of LNP-based pharmaceuticals, chemical modification of RNAi molecules, and RNAi drugs and processes directed at particular disease indications. In the United States our patents might be challenged by inter partes review or opposition proceedings. In Europe, upon grant, a period of nine months is allowed for notification of opposition to such granted patents. If our patents are subjected to inter partes review or opposition proceedings, we would incur significant costs to defend them. Further, our failure to prevail in any such proceedings could limit the patent protection available to our therapeutic HBV programs, coronavirus programs or RNAi platform, including our product candidates. We own more than 65 patent families related to our compounds, formulations, and technology, but we cannot be certain that issued patents will be enforceable or provide adequate protection or that pending patent applications will result in issued patents. The following table shows the estimated expiration dates, based on filing dates of pending patent applications, in the United States and the European Union for the primary patents for our product candidates currently in clinical trials. Product candidate Estimated Patent Expiration in US Estimated Patent Expiration in EU AB-729 2038 2038 18 Human Capital Employee Composition As of December 31, 2022, we had 98 employees (96 full-time and 2 part-time), 76 of whom were engaged in research and development, including three medical doctors, 35 individuals with Doctors of Philosophy (PhDs) degrees, and another 10 individuals with Master of Science degrees. Our workforce is 49% female and 31% of our employees holding a position of vice president or higher are female. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, nor have we experienced any work stoppages. We believe that relations with our employees are good. We supplement our in-house expertise with outsourced capabilities when it would be cost prohibitive to build our own in-house capabilities. For example, we outsource a substantial portion of our clinical trial work to clinical research organizations and a majority of our drug manufacturing is out-sourced to contract manufacturers. Our in-house clinical development and manufacturing teams implement our development strategies and oversee the activities of our outside vendors. Employee Oversight, Training and Development We are invested in the professional development of our employees. In order to promote long-term retention and to maximize the potential of our employees, we provide individualized performance management programs. We also offer needs-based supplemental training to our employees. In order to monitor employee satisfaction and as well to identify ways in which employee satisfaction and engagement can be improved, we also survey our employees on a regular basis, reporting the results of the surveys to management and to our board of directors. In 2022, we experienced our lowest employee turnover in the previous seven years, while many other companies experienced their highest in the midst of an historically competitive job market. Given our financial resources and our track record, we were able to hire 17 new employees in 2022 to support our expanding pipeline of research programs and product candidates. Compensation and Benefits Drug development is a complex endeavor that requires deep expertise and attracting and retaining qualified employees for specialized biopharmaceutical positions. Our compensation programs are designed to attract and retain top talent. We offer every employee a total compensation package consisting of base salary, cash target bonus targeting the 50th to 75th percentile of market based on company size and industry, a comprehensive benefit package, including medical, dental and vision health care coverage, a 401(k) plan with an employer match, tax-advantaged savings accounts and equity compensation for every employee, which includes stock options and restricted stock units. We also provide eligible employees the opportunity to participate in our employee stock purchase plan and our employee rewards and recognition programs. In addition, we provide our employees with wellness programs and we offer mental health support to our employees and dependents. Work-life Balance We aim to ensure our employees maintain a work-life balance by offering 25 paid days of time-off, 12 days of paid holidays, and we shut down in the last week of December. We provide paid parental leave to both birth and adoptive parents. In addition, we allow our employees to have a flexible work schedule and, to the extent possible, depending on the nature of the work, remote and hybrid work arrangements. We believe our focus on total rewards and work-life balance contributed to our having been named one of Philadelphia Business Journal’s Best Places to Work in 2022, a prestigious award that is based on employee survey results. Environmental, Social and Governance Environmental We are a pre-commercial company of less than one hundred employees, engaged in research and development. Manufacturing activities to support these activities is almost entirely outsourced and biohazardous and chemical waste disposal is handled by 19 third party vendors. Although our environmental footprint is subsequently small, we regularly review and evaluate our energy use to identify ways in which we can maximize efficiencies and minimize waste. Social The culture at Arbutus reflects our commitment to our employees, to our community, and to making a meaningful contribution to world health. We are active in community outreach and participate in many local charities serving underserved communities in the Philadelphia area, including partnering with Life Sciences Cares Philadelphia. Safety in the Workplace We strive to provide a productive and safe working environment for our employees. To protect the health and safety of our employees, we have a Health and Safety Committee, officially certified by the PA Department of Labor and Industry - Bureau of Workers Compensation, which is committed to the principles of leadership, responsibility, prevention, and compliance. We follow all recognized Environmental Health and Safety standards and management systems. We have also established an Occupational Health and Safety policy and related standard operating procedures, all of which are used to train our employees in the proper procedures for the workplace. We also solicit employee and contractor recommendations to improve on the safety of our working conditions. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Our commitment to diversity and inclusion is demonstrated by our placement of ultimate responsibility for diversity, equity and inclusion with our board of directors, informed by the recommendations of management and the board’s Nominating and Governance Committee. Our Code of Business Conduct (the “Code of Conduct”) prohibits discrimination and harassment of any kind, including discrimination or harassment based on age, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference and disability. In addition to our anti-harassment and human rights policies, we also require mandatory annual training in unconscious bias and anti-harassment. Some of the diversity and inclusion initiatives at Arbutus include the formation of a Diversity and Inclusion Committee comprised of Arbutus employees and the broadening of the geographical reach of our recruitment efforts. We also celebrate Juneteenth as a corporate holiday. Our Contribution to World Health We are dedicated to meaningfully contributing to world health. We are pursuing the mission of finding a cure for Hepatitis B viral infections, an unmet medical need affecting over 290 million people worldwide, and we are working to develop a treatment for coronaviruses, including COVID-19. Governance As stated in our Code of Conduct, we are committed to complying with all applicable laws, rules and regulations not just in the United States and Canada, but in all the countries in which we operate. In addition to mandating training on our Code of Conduct on an annual basis, we also provide annual training on insider trading, anti-bribery and anti-corruption, among other topics. In addition, we require our suppliers’ agreement to comply with anti-bribery and anti-fraud provisions, and to comply with all applicable laws. All vendors also receive our Code of Conduct at the time of their engagement with us. We comply with all applicable regulations in conducting clinical trials, including FDA ethical regulations, the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation - good Clinical Practices (ICH-GCP). Competition We face a broad range of current and potential competitors, from established global pharmaceutical companies with significant resources, to research-stage companies. In addition, we face competition from academic and research institutions and government agencies for the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat HBV and coronaviruses. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborative partners, have significantly greater financial, product development, technical, manufacturing, sales, and marketing resources than we do. In addition, many of our direct competitors are large pharmaceutical companies with internal research and development departments that have significantly 20 greater experience in testing product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates, and achieving widespread market acceptance for those products. As a significant unmet medical need exists for HBV, there are several large and small pharmaceutical companies focused on delivering singular or combinations of therapeutics for the treatment of HBV. These companies include, but are not limited to, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Vir Biotechnology, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Assembly, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Aligos Therapeutics and Vaccitech. These companies are developing products such as antisense oligonucleotides, capsid inhibitors, RNAi therapeutics, immune modulators and surface antigen inhibitors. These product candidates are in various stages of pre-clinical and clinical development. Further, in addition to current investigational therapeutics in development, it is likely that additional drugs will become available in the future for the treatment of HBV. In addition, given the severity of the global coronavirus pandemic, several companies are developing or commercializing therapeutics for the treatment of coronaviruses. These companies include, but are not limited to, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, Vir Biotechnology, Shionogi, PardesBio, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Aligos Therapeutics and Cocrystal Pharma. We anticipate that we will face competition as new products enter the marketplace. Our competitors’ products may be safer, more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold than any product we may commercialize. Competitive singular or combination products may render one or more of our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our product candidates. It is also possible that the development of a cure or new treatment methods for HBV or coronaviruses could render one or more of our product candidates non-competitive, obsolete, or reduce the demand for our product candidates. We believe that our ability to compete depends, in part, upon our ability to develop products, successfully complete the clinical trials and regulatory approval processes, and effectively market any approved products. Further, we need to attract and retain qualified personnel, obtain patent protection or otherwise develop proprietary product candidates or processes, and secure sufficient capital resources for the substantial time period between the discovery of lead compounds and their commercial sales, if any. Manufacturing We currently rely on third-party manufacturers to supply drug substance and drug products, including AB-729, AB-101, AB-161 and AB-343, for our ongoing and anticipated clinical trials and non-clinical studies. We currently have no plans to establish any large-scale internal manufacturing facilities for our product candidates. Government Regulation Regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and in other countries is a significant consideration in our product development, manufacturing and, if our product candidates are approved, marketing strategies. We expect that all our product candidates will require regulatory approval by the FDA and by similar regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to commercialization and will be subjected to rigorous pre-clinical, clinical, and post-approval testing to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, as well as other significant regulatory requirements and restrictions in each jurisdiction in which we would seek to market our products. In the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. United States federal laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”), and regulations issued thereunder, govern the testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, storage, labeling, record keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, sale, and marketing of all biopharmaceutical products intended for therapeutic purposes. We believe that we and the third parties that work with us are in compliance in all material respects with currently applicable laws, rules and regulations; however, any failure to comply could have a material negative impact on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our products, and therefore on our financial performance. In addition, the laws, rules and regulations that apply to our business are subject to change and it is difficult to foresee whether, how, or when such changes may affect our business. Obtaining governmental approvals to market our product candidates and maintaining ongoing compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations following any such approvals will require the expenditure of significant financial and human resources. 21 Development and Approval The process to develop and obtain approval for biopharmaceutical products for commercialization in the United States and many other countries is lengthy, complex and expensive, and the outcome is far from certain. Although foreign requirements for conducting clinical trials and obtaining approval may differ in certain respects from those in the United States, there are many similarities and they often are equally rigorous, and the outcome cannot be predicted with confidence. A key component of any submission for approval in any jurisdiction is pre-clinical and clinical data demonstrating the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness. Pre-clinical Testing. Before testing any product candidate in humans in the United States, a company must develop pre-clinical data, generally including laboratory evaluation of the product candidate’s chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological studies in animal species to assess safety and quality. Certain types of animal studies must be conducted in compliance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and the Animal Welfare Act, which is enforced by the Department of Agriculture. IND Application. A person or entity sponsoring clinical trials in the United States to evaluate a product candidate’s safety and effectiveness must submit to the FDA, prior to commencing such trials, an investigational new drug (“IND”) application, which contains, among other data and information, pre-clinical testing results and provides a basis for the FDA to conclude that there is an adequate basis for testing the drug in humans. If the FDA does not object to the IND application within 30 days of submission, the clinical testing proposed in the IND may begin. Even after the IND has gone into effect and clinical testing has begun, the FDA may put the clinical trials on “clinical hold,” suspending (or in some cases, ending) them because of safety concerns or for other reasons. Clinical Trials. Clinical trials involve administering a product candidate to human volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified clinical investigator. Clinical trials are subject to extensive regulation. In the United States, this includes compliance with the FDA’s bioresearch monitoring regulations and current good clinical practices (“GCP”) requirements, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of clinical trials, with the goals of assuring that the data and results are credible and accurate and that study participants’ rights, safety and well-being are protected. Each clinical trial must be conducted under a protocol that details, among other things, the study objectives and parameters for monitoring safety and the efficacy criteria, if any, to be evaluated. The protocol is submitted to the FDA as part of the IND and reviewed by the agency. Additionally, each clinical trial must be reviewed, approved and conducted under the auspices of an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”). The sponsor of a clinical trial, the investigators and IRBs each must comply with requirements and restrictions that govern, among other things, obtaining informed consent from each study subject, complying with the protocol and investigational plan, adequately monitoring the clinical trial, and timely reporting AEs. Foreign studies conducted under an IND must meet the same requirements applicable to studies conducted in the United States. However, if a foreign study is not conducted under an IND, the data may still be submitted to the FDA in support of a product application, if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data. The sponsor of a clinical trial or the sponsor’s designated responsible party may be required to register certain information about the trial and disclose certain results on government or independent registry websites, such as clinicaltrials.gov. Clinical testing is typically performed in three phases, which may overlap or be subdivided in some cases. In Phase 1 trials, the product candidate is administered to a small number of human subjects to assess its safety and to develop detailed profiles of its pharmacological and pharmacokinetic actions (i.e., absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion), assess the early safety profile, determine side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, gain early evidence of effectiveness. Although Phase 1 trials are typically conducted in healthy human subjects, in some instances (including, for example, with some cancer therapies) the trial subjects are patients with the targeted disease or condition. In Phase 2 trials, the product candidate is administered to a relatively small sample of the intended patient population to develop initial data regarding efficacy in the targeted disease, determine the optimal dose range, and generate additional information regarding the product candidate’s safety. Additional animal toxicology studies may precede this phase. 22 In Phase 3 trials, the product candidate is administered to a larger group of patients with the target disease or disorder, which may include patients with concomitant diseases and medications. Typically, Phase 3 trials are conducted at multiple study sites and may be conducted concurrently for the sake of time and efficiency. The purpose of Phase 3 clinical trials is to obtain additional information about safety and effectiveness necessary to evaluate the product candidate’s overall risk-benefit profile and to provide a basis for product labeling. Phase 3 data often form the core basis on which the FDA evaluates a product candidate’s safety and effectiveness when considering the product application. The study sponsor, the FDA or an IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a determination that study subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Success in early-stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. Moreover, data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and may be subject to alternative interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent approval. NDA Submission and Review. After completing the clinical studies, a sponsor seeking approval to market a product candidate in the United States submits to the FDA a New Drug Application (“NDA”). The NDA is a comprehensive application intended to demonstrate the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness and includes, among other things, pre-clinical and clinical data, information about the product candidate’s composition, the sponsor’s plans for manufacturing and packaging and proposed labeling. When an NDA is submitted, the FDA makes an initial determination as to whether the application is sufficiently complete to be accepted for review. If the application is not, the FDA may refuse to accept the NDA for filing and request additional information. A refusal to file, which requires resubmission of the NDA with the requested additional information, delays review of the application. FDA performance goals generally provide for action on an NDA within 10 months of the 60-day filing date, or within 12 months of the NDA submission. That deadline can be extended under certain circumstances, including by the FDA’s requests for additional information. The targeted action date can also be shortened to 6 months of the 60-day filing date, or 8 months after NDA submission for product candidates that are granted priority review designation because they are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The FDA has other programs to expedite development and review of product candidates that address serious or life-threatening conditions. For example, the Fast Track program is intended to facilitate the development and review of new drugs that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs involving serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. If a product candidate receives Fast Track designation, the FDA may review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis, rather than requiring the entire application to be submitted to begin the review. Product candidates with Fast Track designation also may be eligible for more frequent meetings and correspondence with the FDA about the product candidate’s development. Another FDA program intended to expedite development is the Accelerated Approval pathway, which allows approval on the basis of a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on an intermediate clinical endpoint. To qualify for review under the Accelerated Approval pathway, a product candidate must treat a serious condition, provide a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on an intermediate clinical endpoint. On December 29, 2022, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which included several changes to the Accelerated Approval pathway within the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”). Under FDORA, the FDA must specify the conditions for any post-approval studies before granting an Accelerated Approval. FDORA gives the agency significant flexibility in setting forth such conditions, which may include enrollment targets, study protocol and milestones—including the target date of study completion. The FDA may also require, as appropriate, that certain post-approval studies be underway prior to Accelerated Approval or within a specified time from the date of approval. Accelerated Approval sponsors are required to report progress every six months on required post-approval trials. Breakthrough Therapy designation, which is available for product candidates under development for serious or life-threatening conditions and where preliminary clinical evidence shows that the product candidate may have substantial improvement on at least one clinically significant endpoint over available therapies, means that a product candidate will be eligible for all of the benefits of Fast Track designation, as well as more intensive guidance from the FDA on an efficient drug development program and a commitment from the agency to involve senior FDA managers in such guidance. Even if a product candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation or Breakthrough Therapy designation, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for designation and may rescind the designation, and/or may determine that the product does not meet the standards for approval. As applicable, we anticipate seeking to utilize these programs to expedite the development and review of our product candidates, but we cannot ensure that our product candidates will qualify for such programs, or that we will be able to maintain such designations if we qualify for such programs. 23 The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. For some NDAs, the FDA may convene an advisory committee to seek insights and recommendations on issues relevant to approval of the application. Although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, the agency considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving a new drug product, the FDA also requires that the facilities at which the product will be manufactured or advanced through the supply chain be in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“GMP”) requirements and regulations governing, among other things, the manufacture, shipment, and storage of the product. The FDA also can conduct audits to determine if the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with GCP. After review of an NDA, the FDA may grant marketing approval, request additional information, or issue a complete response letter (“CRL”) communicating the reasons for the agency’s decision not to approve the application. The CRL may request additional information, including additional preclinical or clinical data, for the FDA to reconsider the application. An NDA may be resubmitted with the deficiencies addressed, but resubmission does not guarantee approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA’s interpretation of data may differ from the sponsor’s. Obtaining approval can take years, requires substantial resources and depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the targeted disease or condition, the availability of alternative treatments, and the risks and benefits demonstrated in clinical trials. Additionally, as a condition of approval, the FDA may impose restrictions that could affect the commercial prospects of a product and increase our costs, such as a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), and/or post-approval commitments to conduct additional clinical trials or non-clinical studies or to conduct surveillance programs to monitor the product’s effects. Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), certain applications for approval must also include an assessment, generally based on clinical study data, of the safety and effectiveness of the subject product in relevant pediatric populations, unless a waiver or deferral is granted. Moreover, once a product is approved, information about its safety or effectiveness from broader clinical use may limit or prevent successful commercialization because of regulatory action, market forces or for other reasons. Post-approval modifications to a drug product, such as changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require development and submission of additional information or data in a new or supplemental NDA, which would also require prior FDA approval. Competition. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”) establishes two abbreviated approval pathways for product candidates that are in some way follow-on versions of already approved branded NDA products: (i) generic versions of the approved reference listed drug (“RLD”), which may be approved under an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) by showing that the generic product is the “same as” the approved product in key respects; and (ii) a product that is similar but not identical to a listed drug, which may be approved under a 505(b)(2) NDA, in which the sponsor relies to some degree on information from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, and submits its own product-specific data to support the differences between the product and the listed drug. The sponsor of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking to rely on an approved product as the RLD or listed drug must make one of several certifications regarding each patent for the RLD that is listed in the FDA publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations , which is referred to as the Orange Book . A “Paragraph I” certification is the sponsor’s statement that patent information has not been filed for the RLD. A “Paragraph II” certification is the sponsor’s statement that the RLD’s patents have expired. A “Paragraph III” certification is the sponsor’s statement that it will wait for the patent to expire before obtaining approval for its product. A “Paragraph IV” certification is an assertion that the patent does not block approval of the later product, either because the patent is invalid or unenforceable or because the patent, even if valid, is not infringed by the new product. Once the FDA accepts for filing an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the RLD or listed drug NDA holder and patent owner that the application has been submitted and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner files suit against the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a period of 30 months or the resolution of the underlying suit, whichever is earlier. 24 Exclusivity and Patent Protection. In the United States and elsewhere, certain regulatory exclusivities and patent rights can provide an approved drug product with protection from certain competitors’ products for a period of time and within a certain scope. In the United States, those protections include regulatory exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which provides periods of exclusivity for a branded drug product that would serve as an RLD for a generic drug applicant filing and an ANDA under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act or as a listed drug for an applicant filing an NDA under section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. If such a product is a “new chemical entity” (“NCE”) generally meaning that the active moiety has never before been approved in any drug, there is a period of five years from the product’s approval during which the FDA may not accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted after four years, however, if the sponsor of the application makes a Paragraph IV certification (as described above). Such a product that is not an NCE may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if its NDA contains new clinical data (other than bioavailability studies), derived from studies conducted by or for the sponsor, that were necessary for approval. In this instance, the three-year exclusivity period does not preclude filing or review of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application; rather, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until three years after approval of the RLD. This three-year exclusivity applies only to the conditions of approval that required submission of the clinical data. The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides for the restoration of a portion of the patent term lost during product development and FDA review of an NDA if approval of the application is the first permitted commercial marketing of a drug containing the active ingredient. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND or the date of patent grant (whichever is later) and the date of submission of the NDA, plus the time between the date of submission of the NDA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The maximum period of restoration is five years, and the patent cannot be extended to more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration. Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”). The Secretary of Health and Human Services may authorize unapproved medical products to be marketed in the context of an actual or potential emergency that has been designated by the U.S. government. The COVID-19 pandemic has been designated as such a national emergency. After an emergency has been announced, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may authorize the issuance of and the FDA Commissioner may issue EUAs for the use of specific products based on criteria established by the FDCA, including that the product at issue may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing serious or life-threatening diseases when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Although the criteria of an EUA differ from the criteria for approval of an NDA, EUAs nevertheless require the development and submission of data to satisfy the relevant FDA standards, and a number of ongoing compliance obligations. The FDA expects EUA holders to work toward submission of full applications, such as an NDA, as soon as possible. An EUA is also subject to additional conditions and restrictions and is product-specific. An EUA terminates when the emergency determination underlying the EUA terminates. An EUA is not a long-term alternative to obtaining FDA approval, licensure, or clearance for a product. The FDA may revoke an EUA for a variety of reasons, including where it is determined that the underlying health emergency no longer exists or warrants such authorization, so it is not possible to predict how long an EUA may remain in place. Post-Approval Regulation Once approved, drug products are subject to continuing extensive regulation by the FDA, including ongoing monitoring for safety information, maintaining appropriate registrations and licenses, and hosting periodic inspections. If ongoing regulatory requirements are not met, or if safety problems occur after a product reaches market, the FDA may take actions to change the conditions under which the product is marketed, such as requiring labeling modifications, restricting distribution, or even withdrawing approval. In addition to FDA regulation, our business is also subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign regulation. Good Manufacturing Practices. Companies engaged in manufacturing drug products or their components must comply with applicable GMP requirements, which include requirements regarding organization and training of personnel, building and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers, closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls and records and reports. The FDA inspects equipment, facilities and manufacturing processes before approval and conducts periodic re-inspections after approval. If, after receiving 25 approval, a company makes a material change in manufacturing equipment, location, or process (all of which are, to some degree, incorporated in the NDA), additional regulatory review and approval may be required. Failure to comply with applicable GMP requirements or the conditions of the product’s approval may lead the FDA to take enforcement actions, such as issuing a warning letter, or to seek sanctions, including fines, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, imposition of operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor FDA compliance of the third parties on which we rely for manufacturing our product candidates, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will consistently comply with GMP or other applicable FDA regulatory requirements. Sales and Marketing . Once a product is approved, the advertising, promotion and marketing of the product will be subject to close regulation, including with regard to promotion to healthcare practitioners, direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, state and federal fraud and abuse laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Failure to comply with applicable requirements in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity, investigations and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and/or 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. New Legislation . New legislation is passed periodically in Congress, or at the state level, that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. Further, the FDA revises its regulations and guidance in light of new legislation in ways that may affect our business or product candidates. It is impossible to predict whether other changes to legislation, regulation, or guidance will be enacted, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. Other Requirements . Companies that manufacture or distribute drug products pursuant to approved NDAs must meet numerous other regulatory requirements, including adverse event reporting, submission of periodic reports, and record-keeping obligations. Fraud and Abuse Laws. At such time as we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval, it is possible that our business activities could be subject to scrutiny and enforcement under one or more federal or state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These restrictions under applicable federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include: • The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Law, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly or willingly offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward the purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any health care items or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, by federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical companies on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Liability may be established under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Law without proving actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Law constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. federal civil False Claims Act. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Law protecting certain common business arrangements and activities from prosecution or regulatory sanctions, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that do not fit squarely within an exemption or safe harbor, or for which no exception or safe harbor is available, may be subject to scrutiny. • The U.S. federal civil False Claims Act, which prohibits, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to 26 pay money to the federal government. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the United States Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual (a whistleblower) in the name of the government and the individual, and the whistleblower may share in any monetary recovery. Many pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been investigated and have reached substantial financial settlements with the federal government under the civil False Claims Act for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities, including: providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product; providing sham consulting fees, grants, free travel and other benefits to physicians to induce them to prescribe the company’s products; and inflating prices reported to private price publication services, which are used to set drug payment rates under government healthcare programs. In addition, in recent years the government has pursued civil False Claims Act cases against a number of pharmaceutical companies for causing false claims to be submitted as a result of the marketing of their products for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. Because of the threat of treble damages and mandatory penalties per false or fraudulent claim or statement, healthcare and pharmaceutical companies often resolve allegations without admissions of liability for significant and material amounts. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies also are subject to other federal false claim laws, including, among others, federal criminal healthcare fraud and false statement statutes that extend to non-government health benefit programs. • The fraud provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which impose criminal liability for knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and prohibit knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. • Analogous state and local 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; state and foreign 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 or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; state laws that restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs; and state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to clinical trials, or information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state laws and local ordinances that require identification or licensing of sales representatives. • The U.S. federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, being implemented as the Open Payments Program, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held in the company by physicians and their immediate family members. As of 2022, applicable manufacturers are also required to report information regarding payments and transfers of value provided (starting in 2021) to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives. • The federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 and other similar anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from providing money or anything of value to officials of foreign governments, foreign political parties or international organizations with the intent to obtain or retain business or seek a business advantage. Recently, there has been a substantial increase in anti-bribery law enforcement activity by United States regulators, with more frequent and aggressive investigations and enforcement proceedings by both the Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Violations of United States or foreign laws or regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines, interruptions of business, loss of supplier, vendor or other third-party relationships, termination of necessary licenses and permits and other legal or equitable sanctions. Other internal or government investigations or legal or regulatory proceedings, including lawsuits brought by private litigants, may also follow as a consequence. 27 Violations of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations are punishable by significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines and exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws may prove costly. Privacy Laws . We are also subject to federal, state and foreign laws and regulations governing data privacy and security of health information, and the collection, use and disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues that may affect our business, including recently enacted laws in all jurisdictions where we operate. Numerous federal and state laws, including state security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, state genetic privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection and privacy laws, (including, for example, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”)) govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. These laws may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. Federal regulators, state attorneys general, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been and will likely continue to be active in this space. Activities outside of the U.S. implicate local and national data protection standards, impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for non-compliance. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and other data protection, privacy and similar national, state/provincial and local laws may restrict the access, use and disclosure of patient health information abroad. Compliance efforts will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us (including the imposition of significant penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our business. In addition, if we successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may obtain patient health information from healthcare providers who prescribe our products and research institutions we collaborate with, and they are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, or our affiliates or our agents knowingly receive individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) also sets expectations for failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure, or failing to provide a level of security commensurate to promises made to individual about the security of their personal information (such as in a privacy notice) may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. With respect to privacy, the FTC also sets expectations for failing to honor the privacy promises made to individuals about how the company handles consumers’ personal information; such failure may also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act. Enforcement by the FTC under the FTC Act can result in civil penalties or enforcement actions. In California, the CCPA establishes certain requirements for data use and sharing transparency and provides California residents certain rights concerning the use, disclosure, and retention of their personal information. The CCPA and its implementing regulations have already been amended multiple times since their enactment. In November 2020, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) ballot initiative which introduced significant amendments to the CCPA and established and funded a dedicated California privacy regulator, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”). The amendments introduced by the CPRA went into effect on January 1, 2023, and new implementing regulations are expected to be introduced by the CPPA. Failure to comply with the CCPA may result in, among other things, significant civil penalties and injunctive relief, or statutory or actual damages. In addition, California residents have the right to bring a private right of action in connection with certain types of incidents. These claims may result in significant liability and damages. Similarly, there are a number of legislative proposals in the United States, at both the federal and state level, that could impose new obligations or limitations in areas affecting our business. For example, other states, including Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut have enacted privacy laws similar to the CCPA that impose new obligations or limitations in 28 areas affecting our business and we continue to assess the impact of these state legislations on our business as additional information and guidance becomes available. These laws and regulations are evolving and subject to interpretation, and may impose limitations on our activities or otherwise adversely affect our business. Activities outside of the U.S. implicate local and national data protection standards, impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for non-compliance. The European Union’s GDPR, which imposes fines of up to EUR 20 million or 4% of the annual global revenue of a noncompliant company, whichever is greater, and other data protection, privacy and similar national, state/provincial and local laws may also restrict the access, use and disclosure of patient health information abroad. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws, to protect against security breaches and hackers, or to alleviate problems caused by such breaches. Compliance with these laws is difficult, constantly evolving, time consuming, and requires a flexible privacy framework and substantial resources. Compliance efforts will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future. There are also a number of legislative proposals in the European Union, the United States, at both the federal and state level, as well as other jurisdictions that could impose new obligations or limitations in areas affecting our business. In addition, some countries are considering or have passed legislation implementing data protection requirements or requiring local storage and processing of data or similar requirements that could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and research activities. These laws and regulations, as well as any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or any other government actions may lead to unfavorable outcomes including increased compliance costs, delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, and remedies that harm our business, including fines or demands or orders that we modify or cease existing business practices. With regard to transfer of personal data, the GDPR restricts the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the European Economic Area to the United States and other countries, which may adversely affect our ability to transfer personal data or otherwise may cause us to incur significant costs to come into compliance with applicable data transfer impact assessments and implementation of legal data transfer mechanisms. One mechanism previously relied upon by companies for such transfers was the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (the “Privacy Shield”). However, in July 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled the Privacy Shield to be an invalid data transfer mechanism and confirmed that the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses (the “Model Clauses”) remain valid and in June 2021, the European Commission published updated versions of the Model Clauses, which must be incorporated into new and existing agreements within prescribed timeframes in order to continue to lawfully transfer personal data outside of the European Union. As a result, companies may no longer rely on the Privacy Shield as a basis on which to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States. U.S.-based companies are permitted to rely on other authorized means and procedures to transfer personal data provided by the GDPR. The Model Clauses may also come under increased scrutiny as a result of the European Court of Justice’s judgement in July 2020, though they remain the most common authorized procedure to transfer personal data out of the European Union. On December, 13 2022, the European Commission adopted a draft adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The draft decision concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union to the United States. The draft adequacy decision text will also have to be approved by a committee composed of representatives of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament can exercise its right of scrutiny. After this process, the European Commission is then expected to adopt the final adequacy decision, which will allow data to flow freely from the European Union to the United States. After one year from the notification date of the adequacy decision to the Member States and subsequently at least every four years, the European Commission will carry out a new evaluation and could conclude that an adequate level of protection is no longer ensured and decide to suspend, amend or repeal the adequacy decision, or limit its scope. Coverage and Reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug 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 product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time 29 periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available in a timely manner from third-party payors, including government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which may not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. 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. A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government healthcare programs and other third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available promptly or at all for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases. Limited coverage may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement is a time-consuming and costly process. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug 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 drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Limited coverage may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Third-party payors also may seek additional clinical evidence, including expensive pharmacoeconomic studies, beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, demonstrating clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations, before covering our products for those patients. If reimbursement is available only for limited indications, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. If we successfully commercialize any of our products, we may participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Participation is required for federal funds to be available for our products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we would be required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and under Part B of the Medicare program. Rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are currently capped at 100 percent of average manufacturer price, but, effective January 1, 2024, this cap will be lifted, which could adversely affect our rebate liability. Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under 30 Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. Medicare is a federal program that is administered by the federal government that covers individuals age 65 and over or that are disabled as well as those with certain health conditions. Medicare Part B generally covers drugs that must be administered by physicians or other health care practitioners; among others. Medicare Part B generally pays for such drugs under a payment methodology based on the average sales price of the drugs. Manufacturers are required to report average sales price information to CMS on a quarterly basis. The manufacturer-submitted information is used by CMS to calculate Medicare payment rates. Effective January 1, 2023, manufacturers will be obligated to pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologicals, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10 percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount. Further, starting in January 2023, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) establishes a Medicare Part B inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally speaking, manufacturers will owe rebates if the average sales price of a Part B drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. Failure to timely pay a Part B inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty. Medicare Part D generally provides coverage to enrolled Medicare patients for self-administered drugs ( i.e. , drugs that are not administered by a physician). Medicare Part D is administered by private prescription drug plans approved by the U.S. government and, subject to detailed program rules and government oversight, each drug plan establishes its own Medicare Part D formulary for prescription drug coverage and pricing, which the drug plan may modify from time to time. The prescription drug plans negotiate pricing with manufacturers and pharmacies, and may condition formulary placement on the availability of manufacturer discounts. In addition, under the coverage gap discount program, manufacturers are required to provide a 70% discount on brand name prescription drugs utilized by Medicare Part D beneficiaries when those beneficiaries are in the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit design. Civil monetary penalties could be due if a manufacturer were to fail to offer discounts under the coverage gap discount program. The IRA sunsets the coverage gap discount program starting in 2025 and replaces it with a new manufacturer discount program. Failure to pay a discount under this new program will be subject to a civil monetary penalty. In addition, starting in October 2022, the IRA established a Medicare Part D inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally speaking, manufacturers will owe additional rebates if the average manufacturer price of a Part D drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. Failure to timely pay a Part D inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty. The IRA also creates a drug price negotiation program under which the prices for Medicare units of certain high Medicare spend drugs and biologicals without generic or biosimilar competition will be capped by reference to, among other things, a specified non-federal average manufacturer price starting in 2026. Failure to comply with requirements under the drug price negotiation program is subject to an excise tax and/or a civil monetary penalty. This or any other legislative change could impact the market conditions for our product candidates. In addition, in order to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”), Department of Defense (“DoD”), Public Health Service, and Coast Guard (the “Big Four agencies”) and certain federal grantees, a manufacturer also must participate in the VA Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program, established by Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (the “VHCA”). Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make its covered drugs (innovator multiple source drugs, single source drugs, and biologics) available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to the Big Four agencies that is no higher than the Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), which is a price calculated pursuant to a statutory formula. The FCP is derived from a calculated price point called the “non-federal average manufacturer price” (“Non-FAMP”), which we will be required to calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Moreover, pursuant to Defense Health Agency (“DHA”) regulations, manufacturers must provide rebates on utilization of their innovator and single source products that are dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE network retail pharmacies. The formula for determining the rebate is established in the regulations and is based on the difference between the annual non-federal average manufacturer price and the Federal Ceiling Price, each required to be calculated by us under the VHCA. The requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, 340B program, FSS, and TRICARE programs could reduce the revenue we may generate from any products that are commercialized in the future and could adversely affect our business and operating results. 31 United States Healthcare Reform The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments also have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. In recent years, Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for drugs administered by physicians. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products, which in turn would affect the price we can receive for those products. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payment from commercial payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. The Affordable Care Act, as amended (the “Affordable Care Act”), has substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and has significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms. Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to modify them or to alter their interpretation and implementation. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted on December 22, 2017, eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, commonly referred to as the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible. It is unclear how efforts to modify or invalidate the Affordable Care Act or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, will affect our business. Any such changes could decrease the number of individuals with health coverage. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures, including those that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals for spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reductions. In concert with subsequent legislation, this has resulted in aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, on average, 2% per fiscal year through 2031. Sequestration is currently set at 2% and will increase to 2.25% for the first half of fiscal year 2030, to 3% for the second half of fiscal year 2030, and to 4% for the remainder of the sequestration period that lasts through the first six months of fiscal year 2031. As long as these cuts remain in effect, they could adversely impact payment for any of our products that are reimbursed under Medicare, once commercialized. We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as well as other healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and new payment methodologies, and in additional downward pressure on coverage and payment and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products. 32 Foreign Regulation In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a number of significant regulations in other jurisdictions regarding research, clinical trials, approval, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and promotion, safety reporting, privacy and pricing and reimbursement. These requirements and restrictions vary from country to country, but in many instances are similar to the United States requirements, and failure to comply with them could have similar negative effects as noncompliance in the United States. Corporate Information Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Tekmira”) was incorporated pursuant to the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“BCBCA”) on October 6, 2005, and commenced active business on April 30, 2007, when Tekmira and its parent company, Inex Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Inex”), were reorganized under a statutory plan of arrangement (the “Plan of Arrangement”) completed under the provisions of the BCBCA. Pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, all of Inex’s business was transferred to Tekmira. Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. (“Protiva”) was acquired on May 30, 2008. On March 4, 2015, we completed a business combination pursuant to which OnCore Biopharma, Inc. (“OnCore”) became our wholly-owned subsidiary of Tekmira. On July 31, 2015, we changed our corporate name from Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation to Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and OnCore changed its corporate name to Arbutus Biopharma, Inc. On January 1, 2018, Protiva was amalgamated with Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. We had one wholly-owned subsidiary as of December 31, 2022: Arbutus Biopharma, Inc. Our principal executive office is located at 701 Veterans Circle, Warminster, Pennsylvania, USA, 18974, and our telephone number is (267) 469-0914. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references herein to “Arbutus”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, and, unless the context requires otherwise, the subsidiaries through which we conduct business. Investor Information We are a reporting issuer in Canada under the securities laws of each of the Provinces of Canada. Our common shares trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “ABUS”. We maintain a website at http://www.arbutusbio.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only. Copies of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our other annual reports on Form 10-K, proxy statements, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and, if applicable, amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website under “Investors – Financial Information – SEC Filings” as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file these materials with, or otherwise furnish them to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. 33