Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

allo-20241231 Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 _________________________________ FORM 10-K _________________________________ (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2024 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO Commission File Number 001-38693 _________________________________ Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) _________________________________ Delaware 82-3562771 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 210 East Grand Avenue , South San Francisco , California 94080 (Address of principal executive offices including zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 650 ) 457-2700 _________________________________ Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, Par Value $0.001 Per Share ALLO The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Small reporting company ☒ Emerging growth company ☐ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). ¨ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒ The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2024 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $ 354 million based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on June 28, 2024 of $2.33 per share, as reported by The Nasdaq Global Select Market . The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 7, 2025 was 217,264,738 . DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before April 30, 2025, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report. Table of Contents Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 5 Item 1A. Risk Factors 38 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 83 Item 1 C . Cybersecurity 83 Item 2. Properties 85 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 85 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 85 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 86 Item 6. [Reserved] 87 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 87 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 98 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 99 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 137 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 137 Item 9B. Other Information 138 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 138 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 139 Item 11. Executive Compensation 142 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 142 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 142 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 142 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 143 Item 16 . Form 10-K Summary 145 i Table of Contents Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “Allogene,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in the sections entitled “Business,” “Risk Factors,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. These statements relate to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about: • the success, cost, timing and potential indications of our product development activities and clinical trials; • the timing of the initiation, enrollment and completion of planned clinical trials in the United States and foreign countries; • our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of our product candidates in any of the indications for which we plan to develop them, and any related restrictions, limitations, and/or warnings in the label of an approved product candidate; • our ability to obtain funding for our operations, including funding necessary to complete the clinical trials of any of our product candidates; • our ability and plans to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates; • our ability to attract and retain collaborators with development, regulatory and commercialization expertise; • the size of the markets for our product candidates, and our ability to serve those markets; • our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates; • the rate and degree of market acceptance of our product candidates; • our ability to develop and maintain sales and marketing capabilities, whether alone or with potential future collaborators; • regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries; • our ability to contract with and the performance of our and our collaborators’ third-party suppliers and manufacturers; • our ability to develop and successfully operate our own manufacturing facility; • the success of competing therapies that are or become available; • our ability to attract and retain key scientific or management personnel; • the accuracy of our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing; • our use of cash and other resources; and • our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates and our ability to operate our business without infringing on the intellectual property rights of others. In some cases, you can identify these statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expects,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms, and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes. These forward-looking statements reflect our management’s beliefs and views with respect to future events and are based on estimates and assumptions as of the date of this report and are subject to risks and uncertainties. In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be 1 Table of Contents limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements. We discuss many of the risks associated with the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report in greater detail under the heading “Risk Factors.” Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. You should carefully read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report by these cautionary statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Trademarks and Trade names This Annual Report contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies. 2 Table of Contents RISK FACTOR SUMMARY Below is a summary of the material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” under Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report, and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report before making investment decisions regarding our common stock. Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs • We have incurred net losses in every period since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses in the future. • We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. • We may fail to meet our publicly announced guidance or other expectations about our business, which would cause our stock price to decline. Risks Related to Our Business and Industry • Our product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and the likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval. • Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates. If we are unable to advance clinical development, obtain approval of and successfully commercialize our lead product candidates for the treatment of patients in approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed. • Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that have halted and could in the future halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences. • Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization. • No CAR T therapy has been approved as a part of first-line consolidation strategy for the treatment of LBCL patients, which presents significant regulatory, commercial, and operational risks, and there is no assurance of success in this unproven setting. • We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect. • If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. • We may fail to successfully manufacture our product candidates, operate our own manufacturing facility, or obtain regulatory approval to utilize or commercialize from our manufacturing facility or at a CDMO, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates. • We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively. • We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy. • Changes in funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies including comparable foreign regulatory authorities could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business. Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates • Our engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates represent a novel approach to cancer treatment and treatment of autoimmune diseases, which creates significant challenges for us. • Gene-editing is a relatively new technology, and if we are unable to use this technology in our intended product candidates, our revenue opportunities will be materially limited. 3 Table of Contents • We are heavily reliant on our partners, Cellectis and Servier, for access to TALEN gene editing technology for the manufacturing and development of our oncology product candidates. • We are heavily reliant on our partner, Foresight Diagnostics, for access to their CLARITY™ MRD test for identifying eligible patients for our ALPHA3 trial. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties • We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates. Risks Related to Government Regulation • The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory approval processes are lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates. • The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our CAR T cell product candidates. • If we, or our collaborators, are required by the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to obtain approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic device in connection with approval of one of our product candidates, and we, or our collaborators, do not obtain, or face delays in obtaining, approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic device, we will not be able to commercialize the product candidate, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property • We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business. • If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock • The price of our stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment. 4 Table of Contents PART I Item 1. Business Overview We are a clinical stage immuno-oncology company pioneering the development of genetically engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. We are developing a pipeline of “off-the-shelf” T cell product candidates that are designed to target and kill cancer cells in patients or eliminate pathogenic autoreactive cells in patients with autoimmune disorders. Our engineered T cells are allogeneic, meaning they are derived from healthy donors for intended use in any patient, rather than from an individual patient for that patient’s use, as in the case of autologous T cells. We believe this key difference will enable us to deliver readily available treatments faster, more reliably, at greater scale, and to more patients. Last year we executed our 2024 Platform Vision, which we believe will redefine the future of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T therapy by leveraging the unique attributes of allogeneic CAR T products. In furtherance of that vision, we continue to focus on three core programs: 1. Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) : Potentially groundbreaking ALPHA3 Trial that we believe may leapfrog other CAR T’s and embed cemacabtagene ansegedleucel (cema-cel, previously ALLO-501A) in first line (1L) LBCL treatment in community cancer centers where most newly diagnosed patients seek care. 2. Autoimmune Disease (AID) : ALLO-329, our next-generation CD19 Dagger® program, focuses on scalability and reduced or chemotherapy-free lymphodepletion, positioning allogeneic CAR T to potentially transform autoimmune management and meet the demand of the market. 3. Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) : TRAVERSE trial with ALLO-316 seeks to advance scientific innovation underlying the Dagger® technology to optimize CAR T cell expansion and persistence, thereby maximizing the potential of allogeneic CAR T in solid tumors while mitigating treatment-associated inflammatory response. Our allogeneic approach involves engineering healthy donor T cells, which we believe will allow for the creation of an inventory of off-the-shelf products that can be delivered to a larger portion of eligible patients throughout the world. These potential benefits led our Executive Chair, Arie Belldegrun, M.D., who was previously the Chair and Chief Executive Officer at Kite Pharma (Kite, now a Gilead company), and our President and Chief Executive Officer, David Chang, M.D., Ph.D., previously Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of Research and Development at Kite, to found our company with the driving purpose of accelerating the development of allogeneic CAR T cell therapies. Although we are currently focusing on our three core development programs noted above, we continue to have a deep pipeline to further the research and development of allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates in both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. We believe our technology platform combined with our management team’s experience in immuno-oncology and specifically in CAR T cell therapy will help drive the rapid development and, if approved, the commercialization of potentially curative therapies for patients with aggressive cancer or who suffer from autoimmune diseases. Our Approach Our allogeneic CAR T cell development strategy has four key pillars: (1) engineering product candidates to minimize the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), a condition where allogeneic T cells can recognize the patient’s normal tissue as foreign and cause damage, (2) creating a window of persistence that may enable allogeneic T cells to expand and eradicate cancer cells in patients or pathogenic autoreactive cells in patients, (3) building a leading manufacturing platform to enable consistent and high quality production and (4) leveraging next generation technologies to improve the functionality of allogeneic CAR T cells. For our oncology programs we use Cellectis, S.A. (Cellectis), TALEN® gene-editing technology to limit the risk of GvHD by engineering T cells to lack functional T cell receptors (TCRs), thereby preventing them from recognizing a patient’s normal tissue as foreign. With the goal of enhancing the expansion and persistence of our engineered allogeneic T cells, we use TALEN® technology to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor T cells and an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody to deplete CD52 expressing T cells in patients while sparing the therapeutic allogeneic T cells. We believe this enables a window of persistence for the infused allogeneic T cells to actively target and destroy cancer cells. We are also developing ALLO-647, our own anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, which is designed to be used prior to infusing our other product candidates as part of a 5 Table of Contents lymphodepletion regimen. Our off-the-shelf approach is dependent on state-of-the-art manufacturing processes, and we believe we have built a technical operations organization with fully integrated in-house expertise in clinical and commercial engineered T cell manufacturing. For our lead autoimmune program, we have a non-exclusive license with Arbor Biotechnologies relating to a CRISPR-based gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against various targets, including CD19 and CD70 both of which ALLO-329 targets. We have built our own current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) manufacturing facility in Newark, California, that we call Cell Forge 1 (CF1). We are currently utilizing CF1 for clinical manufacturing of our product candidates. Finally, we plan to leverage next generation technologies to develop more potent product candidates and to develop product candidates to overcome premature rejection of allogeneic CAR T cells by the patient’s immune system. We believe next generation technologies will also allow us to further develop allogeneic T cell therapies for the treatment of solid tumors, which to date have been difficult to treat because of, among other factors, the lack of validated targets and tumor microenvironments that can impair the activity of T cells. Our Pipeline We are currently developing a pipeline of multiple allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates utilizing protein engineering, gene editing, gene insertion and advanced proprietary T cell manufacturing technologies. Our most advanced product candidate, cemacabtagene ansegedleucel, referred to as cema-cel (previously ALLO-501A), is an engineered allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate that targets CD19, a protein expressed on the cell surface of B cells and a validated target for B cell driven hematological malignancies. We are currently focused on developing cema-cel for LBCL. Our pipeline also includes ALLO-316 and ALLO-329. ALLO-316 is an engineered allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate that targets CD70, which is highly expressed in RCC and is selectively expressed in several other cancers thereby creating the potential for ALLO-316 to be developed across a variety of both hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. We are currently focused on developing ALLO-316 for RCC. ALLO-329, an engineered allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate that targets both CD19 and CD70, is in development for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). We have additional product candidates, but we have deprioritized these programs to allow us to focus on cema-cel, ALLO-316 and ALLO-329. Our pipeline is represented in the diagram below. 1 Phase 2 designed to be registrational Our lead product candidates include: • Cemacabtagene ansegedleucel (cema-cel). We are enrolling a pivotal Phase 2 clinical trial (ALPHA3) for cema-cel as part of a 1L treatment plan for newly diagnosed and treated LBCL patients who are likely to relapse and need further therapy. The design of the ALPHA3 1L consolidation trial builds upon the results demonstrated in the Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial and leverages an investigational diagnostic test developed by Foresight Diagnostics, Inc. (Foresight Diagnostics) that we believe will identify patients who have achieved remission by standard disease assessment but who have minimal residual disease (MRD) at the completion of 1L chemoimmunotherapy. The ALPHA3 trial is designed to study the impact of treating MRD positive patients with cema-cel. The study will randomize 6 Table of Contents approximately 240 patients who achieve a complete response or partial response to 1L therapy, but who are MRD positive. Patients will be randomized to receive either consolidation with cema-cel or the current standard of care, which is observation. The study design, which has event free survival (EFS) as its primary endpoint, initially includes two lymphodepletion arms: – FCA: standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide plus ALLO-647 – FC: standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide without ALLO-647 One of these lymphodepletion arms will be discontinued following a planned interim analysis designed to identify the most appropriate regimen for this patient population. An initial safety and futility interim analysis will occur once 12 patients in each arm have been enrolled and followed for MRD conversion. If both treatment arms perform better than the control arm according to the futility criteria, but neither treatment arm shows a trend toward superiority relative to the other in this interim analysis, additional patients may be enrolled and analyzed before we select the final lymphodepletion regimen. The selection of the lymphodepletion regimen is anticipated around mid-2025, depending on the interim analyses results and overall trial progress. • ALLO-316. We have completed enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial (TRAVERSE) of ALLO-316, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting CD70, in adult patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. We presented interim results from the TRAVERSE trial at the International Kidney Cancer Symposium (IKCS) and The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer's (SITC) Annual Meeting in November 2024. See “—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy—Anti-CD70 Development Program—Results from the Phase 1 ALLO-316 TRAVERSE Trial” for information regarding the results. In October 2024, we announced that we received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation for ALLO-316 for adult patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. The RMAT designation was based on Phase 1 clinical data from the TRAVERSE trial indicating the potential of ALLO-316 to address the unmet need for patients with difficult-to-treat RCC who have failed multiple standard RCC therapies, including an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF-targeting therapy. Once we have obtained additional follow-up data on the enrolled patients, we plan to engage with FDA to establish the next steps for this development program. • ALLO-329. Following the clearance of an IND in January 2025, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial (the RESOLUTION trial) of ALLO-329, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting both CD19 and CD70, in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, including lupus nephritis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, and systemic sclerosis in mid-2025. Inclusion of an anti-CD70 CAR in ALLO-329 incorporates the Dagger® technology, which is designed to reduce or eliminate the need for standard chemotherapy by preventing premature rejection while targeting CD19+ B-cells and CD70+ activated T-cells, both of which play a role in autoimmune diseases. The RESOLUTION trial will include two distinct lymphodepletion arms: one using a dose of cyclophosphamide alone which is used by rheumatologists, and another that eliminates lymphodepletion entirely. • Other Product Candidates: While we have additional programs in our pipeline, our development priorities are focused on cema-cel (1L Consolidation in LBCL), ALLO-316, and ALLO-329. We will explore opportunities to partner with collaborators on product candidates across our pipeline. Our History and Team We believe we have established a leadership position in allogeneic CAR T cell therapy. In April 2018, we acquired certain assets from Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), including strategic license and collaboration agreements and other intellectual property related to the development and administration of allogeneic CAR T cells for the treatment of cancer. We have an Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreement (the Servier Agreement) with Les Laboratoires Servier SAS and Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier SAS (collectively, Servier) to develop and commercialize cema-cel, and certain additional product candidates, and we hold the commercial rights to these product candidates in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The Servier Agreement gives us access to Cellectis’ TALEN® gene-editing technology for cema-cel. We also have an exclusive worldwide oncology license from Cellectis to use its TALEN® gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against 15 different cancer antigens, including CD70 which ALLO-316 targets. We also have a non-exclusive license with Arbor Biotechnologies relating to a CRISPR-based gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates in the field of autoimmune diseases directed against various targets, including CD19 and CD70, both of which ALLO-329 targets. Our world-class management team has significant experience in immuno-oncology and in progressing products from early-stage research to clinical trials, and ultimately to regulatory approval and commercialization. In particular, both Dr. Belldegrun and Dr. Chang led the development and approval of Yescarta® at Kite. Additionally, our Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Zachary Roberts, was also instrumental in the development and execution of the clinical trials of Yescarta® across multiple indications. 7 Table of Contents Our Strategy Our goal is to maintain and build upon our leadership position in allogeneic CAR T cell therapy. We plan to rapidly develop and, if approved, commercialize allogeneic CAR T cell products for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease that can be delivered faster, more reliably, and at greater scale than autologous T cell therapies. We believe achieving this goal could result in allogeneic CAR T therapy becoming a standard of care in cancer and autoimmune disease treatments and enable us to make potentially curative products more readily accessible to more patients throughout the world. Key elements of our strategy include: • Repositioning our allogeneic CAR T product as the only CAR T to be part of a first-line (1L) consolidation approach. We seek to redefine the future of CAR T by potentially repositioning our allogeneic CAR T product as the only CAR T to be part of a first line (1L) treatment plan for newly diagnosed and treated LBCL patients who are likely to relapse and need further therapy. The design of the ALPHA3 1L consolidation trial builds upon the results demonstrated in the Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial and leverages an investigational diagnostic test developed by Foresight Diagnostics to identify patients who have MRD at the completion of 1L chemoimmunotherapy for treatment with cema-cel. The ALPHA3 trial was initiated in June 2024 and now has 40 sites activated and screening for patients with MRD. An interim analysis is anticipated around mid-2025 depending on the analyses and overall trial progress, and based thereon, the lymphodepletion regimen for the remainder of the trial will be selected. • Expand our allogeneic CAR T platform into the treatment of autoimmune disease (AID). We are currently developing a next-generation product candidate, ALLO-329, which is an engineered allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate that targets CD19 and CD70. ALLO-329 incorporates our Dagger® technology. In January 2025, we announced that the FDA has cleared our IND for a rheumatology basket study of ALLO-329, our RESOLUTION trial. Incorporation of the Dagger® technology into an “off-the-shelf” CD19 product for use in AID is designed to reduce or eliminate the need for standard chemotherapy while targeting CD19+ B-cells and CD70+ activated T-cells, both of which play a role in AID. Initiation of the RESOLUTION trial is targeted for mid-2025 with initial proof-of-concept data available anticipated around year-end 2025. • Build state-of-the-art gene engineering and cell manufacturing capabilities . Manufacturing allogeneic T cell product candidates involves a series of complex and precise steps. We believe a critical component to our success will be to leverage and expand our proprietary manufacturing know-how, expertise and capacity. For instance, for our lead product candidate, cema-cel, we were able to identify and select a manufacturing process that was associated with robust clinical performance in Phase 1. We believe establishing our own fully integrated manufacturing operations and infrastructure will allow us to continuously improve the manufacturing process, limit our reliance on contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) and more rapidly advance the commercialization of any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval. • Expand into solid tumor indications with high unmet need and leverage next generation technologies to advance our platform. We plan to continue to advance the research and development of ALLO-316, which targets CD70, for the treatment of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) as part of our TRAVERSE trial. We are investigating next-generation technologies incorporated in the design of ALLO-316 which seek to better control rejection of allogeneic CAR T cells by the patient's immune system. Such technologies include our Dagger® technology that utilizes an anti-CD70 CAR to kill alloreactive host T cells. We continually survey the scientific and industry landscape for opportunities to license, partner or acquire technologies that may help us advance current or new cell therapies for the benefit of patients. Allogeneic CAR T Cell Therapy Engineered T Cell Therapies T cells are a type of white blood cell and are involved in both sensing and killing infected or abnormal cells, including cancer cells, as well as coordinating the activation of other cells in an immune response. Engineered T cell therapy is a type of immunotherapy treatment whereby human T cells are removed from the body and engineered to express CARs which, when infused into a patient, may allow the recognition and destruction of cancer cells in a targeted manner. Chimeric Antigen Receptors (CARs) CARs are engineered molecules that, when present on the surface of a T cell, enable the T cell to recognize specific proteins or antigens that are present on the surface of other cells. More than one type of CAR can be included in a CAR T cell, 8 Table of Contents imparting multi-antigen targeting capability. The CAR molecule(s) in our product candidates are comprised of a single chain protein that contains the following elements: • Target Binding Domain: At one end of the CAR is a target binding domain that is specific to a target antigen. This domain extends out onto the surface of the engineered T cell, where it can recognize the target antigens. The target binding domain consists of a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) of an antibody comprising variable domains of heavy and light chains joined by a short linker. • Transmembrane Domain and Hinge: This middle portion of the CAR links the scFv target binding domain to the activating elements inside the cell. This transmembrane domain “anchors” the CAR in the cell’s membrane. In addition, the transmembrane domain may also interact with other transmembrane proteins that enhance CAR function. The hinge domain, which extends to the exterior of the cell, connects the transmembrane domain to scFv and provides structural flexibility to facilitate optimal binding of scFv to the target antigen on the cancer cell’s surface. • Activating Domains: The other end of transmembrane domain, inside the T cell, is connected to one or more signaling domains responsible for activating the T cell when the CAR binds to the target cell. The CD3 zeta domain delivers an essential primary signal within the T cell, and the 41BB domain delivers an additional, co-stimulatory signal. Together, these signals trigger T cell activation, resulting in proliferation of the CAR T cells and killing of the cancer cell. In addition, activated CAR T cells stimulate the local secretion of cytokines and other molecules that can recruit and activate additional immune cells to potentiate killing of the cancer cells. In addition to the domains described above, in ALLO-316, we have included rituximab recognition domains to potentially serve to identify and/or eliminate ALLO-316 cells using rituximab. The figure below shows the constructs that support our lead product candidates in clinical development: cema-cel, ALLO-316 and ALLO-329. Allogeneic CAR T Cell Products: The Next Revolution There are two primary approaches to engineered T cell therapy: autologous and allogeneic. Autologous therapies use engineered T cells derived from the individual patient, while allogeneic products use engineered T cells derived from unrelated healthy donors. While the autologous approach has been revolutionary, demonstrating compelling efficacy in many patients, it is burdened by the following key limitations: • Lengthy Delivery Time . Due to the individualized manufacturing process, patients may wait weeks to months to be treated with their engineered cells. As a result, in the registrational trials for Yescarta® and Kymriah ® , up to 31% of intended patients ultimately did not receive treatment primarily due to complications from the underlying disease prior to delivery of therapy or as a result of manufacturing failures. In addition, certain patients being treated with autologous therapies have sometimes required bridging therapy as they wait for the manufacture of their T cells, however, bridging therapy to control disease may increase some cumulative or synergistic toxicities for the patients. Other rapidly progressing patients may not be considered candidates for autologous CAR T given lengthy waiting times and limited manufacturing slots. Each of these autologous CAR T challenges creates inherent limitations to the uptake of autologous CAR T therapies. As discussed in more detail below, these limitations become increasingly prohibitive in diseases where time is of the essence as is the case in 1L consolidation, making autologous CAR T therapy unsuitable for such use. 9 Table of Contents • Variable Potency . In some cases, patients may have T cells that have been damaged or weakened due to prior chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplant. Compromised T cells may not proliferate well during manufacturing or may produce cells with insufficient potency that cannot be used for patient treatment, resulting in manufacturing failures, or that can show poor expansion and activity in patients. In addition, the individualized nature of autologous manufacturing, together with the variability in patients’ T cells, may lead to variable potency of manufactured T cells, and this variability may cause unpredictable treatment outcomes. • Manufacturing Failures . Autologous cell manufacturing sometimes encounters production failures. This can mean that a patient never receives treatment, as additional patient starting material may not be available or the patient may no longer be eligible due to advanced disease. Furthermore, retreatment can be difficult due to a limited supply of usable patient starting material. • Complex Logistics . The delivery of autologous T cell therapy is complicated due to the individualized nature of manufacturing, which allows only one patient to be treated from each manufacturing run and requires dedicated infrastructure to maintain a strict chain of custody and chain of identity of patient-by-patient material collection, manufacturing and delivery. The complex logistics add significant cost to the process and limit the ability to scale. Additionally, the collection of T cells through leukapheresis from each individual patient results in a time consuming and costly step in the autologous process. In part due to these logistics, autologous treatment is currently only available at select centers. Allogeneic engineered T cells are manufactured in a similar manner as autologous, but our manufacturing has two key differences: (1) our allogeneic T cells are derived from healthy donors, not cancer patients, and (2) our allogeneic T cells are genetically engineered to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable a window of persistence in the patient. Our approach is designed to provide the same intended curative outcome as autologous therapy, while offering the following potential key advantages: • Availability and Access . Starting with T cells from a healthy donor, we believe that at scale we can manufacture approximately 100 doses or more of allogeneic CAR T product per manufacturing run that could be used in any eligible patient. Because our allogeneic product candidates are designed to be frozen and available off-the-shelf, they are expected to be readily shipped and administered to patients. • Speed to Patient . Many patients with aggressive or rapidly progressing cancer may not have multiple weeks to wait for autologous CAR T treatment. Our allogeneic approach has the potential to create off-the-shelf product inventory, which could enable dosing of patients within days of a decision to treat. This would represent a significant reduction in patient wait time, potentially obviating the need for any bridging therapy and allowing the treatment of patients who are either too sick, or their disease progresses too quickly for them to wait for their autologous CAR T cells to be manufactured, thus potentially improving patient outcomes. In addition, as we seek to incorporate our investigational allogeneic CAR T product into a 1L consolidation strategy, the speed to patient becomes even more important. Once it is determined that a patient is MRD positive following standard 1L treatment, published results of front-line chemotherapy outcomes suggest that the patient is very likely to progress, and some patients may do so very quickly (i.e., within a matter of weeks after completing 1L therapy). Furthermore, data suggests that patients who have low burden of disease when they receive CAR T cells tend to have better safety and efficacy outcomes, including lower rates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and more durable remissions. As a result, we believe that autologous CAR T therapy is far less suitable for treating MRD positive patients as part of a 1L consolidation strategy given the lengthy lead time for the autologous individualized manufacturing process, which would not allow for rapid CAR T treatment before disease progression and while the disease burden remains low. • Enhanced Cell Consistency and Potency . Our manufacturing process produces therapies from selected, screened and tested healthy donors. Healthy donor T cells are potentially superior for engineered cellular therapy as compared to T cells from patients who have undergone prior chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, which can damage or weaken T cells. In addition, greater consistency of the product may yield more predictable treatment outcomes. • Streamlined Manufacturing . We have built an efficient and scalable manufacturing process and organization. The allogeneic CAR T approach utilizes healthy donor T cells which we believe provides enhanced scalability, and an off-the-shelf capability that can potentially reduce the costs to the overall healthcare system as it does not require bridging therapy, leukapheresis and complex logistics. 10 Table of Contents Manufacturing Allogeneic T Cells There are similarities as well as key differences between the processes for allogeneic and autologous CAR T cell manufacturing. The three primary steps to creating our engineered allogeneic CAR T cells are: (1) collection and transduction, (2) gene editing, and (3) purification, formulation, and storage. We start with collecting white blood cells from a healthy donor, which are subsequently stimulated to proliferate and transduced with a viral vector to integrate the CAR sequence into the T cell genome. The CAR sequence directs the expression of CAR proteins on the cell surface that allows the transduced T cells to recognize and bind to a target molecule, for example a target that is present on cancer cells or pathogenic autoreactive immune cells. Next, we use gene editing tools to edit the T cell genome to inactivate TCRα, and in the case of our oncology products, to also inactivate CD52. Inactivation of TCRα and CD52 is intended to reduce the risk of GvHD and enable the use of ALLO-647, a proprietary CD52 monoclonal antibody, as part of lymphodepletion to allow the allogeneic T cells to expand and persist in patients, respectively. For oncology products the transduction and genetic editing steps are separate, but for our autoimmune disease product candidate, ALLO-329, the steps are combined and utilize different gene editing technology. Furthermore, ALLO-329 does not incorporate the CD52 knockout utilized in oncology products. Finally, the edited T cells are cultured for several days to increase the cell number, harvested and purified. The purified T cells are formulated in a cryopreservation media and filled into closed, stoppered vials prior to controlled-rate freezing and long-term storage in the vapor phase of liquid nitrogen. This inventory is securely stored and then shipped to treatment facilities, as needed. Product Pipeline and Development Strategy Using our proprietary allogeneic CAR T cell platform, we are researching and developing multiple product candidates for the treatment of blood cancers, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases. Our product candidates are allogeneic T cells engineered to be used as off-the-shelf treatments for any patient with a particular cancer type or autoimmune disease. Each product candidate bears specific engineered attributes, and targets a selected antigen expressed on tumor cells or pathogenic autoreactive immune cells. Our product pipeline is represented in the chart below: 11 Table of Contents 1 Phase 2 designed to be registrational Anti-CD19 Oncology Development Program CD19 is an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells, including on B cells that are malignant. B cells are considered non-essential tissue, as they are not absolutely required for patient survival. We believe CD19 is a validated target for the treatment of B cell leukemias and lymphomas. Multiple autologous anti-CD19 CAR T therapies have shown promising results and have been approved by the FDA as therapies in multiple blood cancers, including relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL, as further described below under "—Competition". Historically, under our Servier Agreement, we have worked with Servier to develop several CD19 product candidates, including UCART19, ALLO-501 and cema-cel. On September 15, 2022, Servier sent us a notice of discontinuation of its involvement in the development of all CD19 Products pursuant to the Servier Agreement. On May 10, 2024, the we entered into an Amendment and Settlement Agreement (the Servier Amendment) with Servier which restructures our relationship under the Servier Agreement. Under the Servier Amendment the parties agreed that co-development performed by the Company and Servier under the Servier Agreement, including co-development relating to CD19 Products, ceased as of December 15, 2022. UCART19 was our first CD19 product candidate, and Servier led its manufacturing and clinical development. UCART19 was manufactured to express a CAR that is designed to target CD19 and gene edited to lack TCRα and CD52 to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable use of anti-CD52 monoclonal antibodies to create a window of CAR T cell persistence in the patient. In addition, UCART19 cells were engineered to express a small protein on the cell surface called RQR8, which consists of two rituximab recognition domains. This allowed for recognition and elimination of the CAR T cells by rituximab if silencing of CAR T cell activity is desired. Servier sponsored two Phase 1 clinical trials of UCART19 in patients with R/R CD19 positive B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), both of which were completed in 2020. Patients from both studies are continuing the long-term follow-up as planned. We have been, and continue to be, responsible for the manufacture and clinical development of ALLO-501 and cema-cel. ALLO-501 is identical to UCART19 in molecular design, however several modifications were introduced by us to the manufacturing process for ALLO-501. These modifications are designed to facilitate more efficient manufacturing scale-up for the larger patient population targeted by ALLO-501. Like UCART19, ALLO-501 also co-expresses a small protein on the cell surface called RQR8, which consists of two rituximab recognition domains. This is intended to allow for destruction of the CAR T by rituximab. Prior treatment with rituximab is typical for patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) and, depending on the lag time between the rituximab administration and the CAR T infusion, prior administration of rituximab may interfere with any CAR T that includes RQR8. As a result, we have removed RQR8 in cema-cel, which is illustrated below, to facilitate treatment of patients who were recently treated with rituximab. 12 Table of Contents Lead Target Indication: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) NHL is a hematologic cancer originating from malignant lymphocytes. It is the most common hematological malignancy in the United States, with 80,620 new cases estimated to be diagnosed and 20,140 deaths estimated in 2024, according to the American Cancer Society. Over 60 NHL subtypes have been identified, and each subtype represents different neoplastic lymphoid cells (T, B or NK cells) that have arrested at different stages of differentiation. According to the American Cancer Society, B-cell lymphomas make up approximately 85% of NHL cases in the United States. B-cell NHL itself represents a group of different neoplasms that not only differ in pathology, but also response to therapy and prognosis. NHL can be rapidly growing (aggressive), such as LBCLs, or it can be slow growing, or indolent, such as follicular lymphoma (FL). The R-CHOP chemotherapy combination (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) introduced in the early 2000s remains the standard of care for newly diagnosed LBCL, and can yield five-year survival rates of 55-60%. Unfortunately, approximately 30% of LBCL patients relapse or have treatment-refractory disease and require second-line therapy. Subsequent therapy for fit patients is commonly high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem-cell therapy or autologous anti-CD19 CAR T therapy. Two previous randomized controlled trials evaluated anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapies, Yescarta® and Breyanzi® compared to high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell rescue. Yescarta® and Breyanzi® improved event-free-survival versus stem cell transplant (8.3 months vs. 2.0 months and 10.1 months vs. 2.3 months, respectively). A retrospective analysis of patients with R/R LBCL, who were not treated with autologous CAR T therapy, found that outcomes in this population are poor, with an objective response rate of 26% (complete response (CR): 7%, partial response: 18%) and median overall survival of 6.3 months. Autologous CAR T therapy has made significant advances in addressing R/R NHL, and has moved to earlier lines of therapy, as further described below under — "Competition". Results from the Phase 1 ALLO-501 ALPHA Trial and the Phase 1 cema-cel ALPHA2 Trial On February 13, 2025, we announced long-term follow up data from the Phase 1 ALPHA trial of ALLO-501 and from the Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial of cema-cel in R/R LBCL which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The ALPHA/ALPHA2 studies were single-arm, multicenter, open-label, Phase 1 trials. As of the data cutoff date (September 26, 2024), 33 CD19 CAR T-naive patients with R/R LBCL were treated in ALPHA/ALPHA2 with cema-cel/ALLO-501 manufactured with the process selected for use in pivotal studies. The overall Response Rate (ORR) and Complete Response (CR) rate in the ALPHA/ALPHA2 trials were comparable with those observed in patients with R/R LBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy who received treatment with approved autologous CD19 CAR T cell products. All treatment regimens studied demonstrated clinical benefit. The selected Phase 2 regimen (fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion with 90 mg of ALLO-647 (FCA90) followed by a single dose of CAR+ cells) yielded the highest ORR and CR of 67% and 58%, respectively. Five of 12 patients in this group achieved CR that lasted at least 6 months. 13 Table of Contents Patients Treated with Phase 2 Regimen (n=12) Overall Response Rate (ORR), n (%) 8 (67) Complete Response (CR), n (%) 7 (58) 6 Month CR Rate, n (%) 5 (42) Patients who achieved a CR had excellent outcomes with a median DOR, PFS (progression free survival) and OS of 23.1 months, 24 months, and not reached, respectively. For patients receiving the selected Phase 2 regimen, median DOR was 23.1 months and median OS was not reached. The safety profile, including incidence of cytopenias and infections, was manageable and consistent with that of approved autologous CD19 CAR T cell therapies. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), or high-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS). The most common any-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) (≥25%) were neutropenia (85%), anemia (67%), thrombocytopenia (58%), infusion-related reactions (IRRs; 58%), fatigue (52%), and pyrexia (49%), nausea (39%), lymphopenia (36%), hypotension (36%), peripheral edema (33%), decreased white blood cell count (30%), CMV reactivation (30%), decreased appetite (30%), chills (30%), and hypoxia (27%). The median time to start of treatment was two days from study enrollment. In contrast, autologous CAR T cell products require wait times often longer than 1 month despite incremental advancements in manufacturing and supply chains. A growing body of evidence indicates that treatment with CAR T at times when the disease burden is low leads to improved safety and efficacy outcomes and this study reported similar findings. Among patients with baseline tumor burden <1000 mm² or normal serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a blood test that indicates disease activity, the CR rate was 100% (6/6) and 82% (9/11), respectively. These CR rates in this subpopulation support cema-cel as a promising therapeutic option in patients with minimum residual disease (MRD), the population currently being studied in the ALPHA3 trial. These results serve as the foundation for the ongoing ALPHA3 trial, which is evaluating cema-cel as a consolidation therapy in LBCL patients who are in remission following 1L treatment but remain positive for MRD as detected by an ultrasensitive ctDNA based blood test, Foresight Diagnostics’ investigational CLARITY™ , powered by PhasED-Seq™. These patients have extremely low disease burden, a key subgroup who demonstrated excellent disease outcomes in the ALPHA/ALPHA2 trials. Clinical Development Plan - Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) We are the sponsor of the ALPHA trial of ALLO-501 and ALPHA2 trial of cema-cel, each for patients with R/R NHL or CLL. The ALPHA trial is a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-501 in patients with R/R LBCL and R/R FL. We completed accrual in the ALPHA trial in 2021 and are following patients as part of long-term follow-up. The ALPHA2 trial was initiated as a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for cema-cel in the second quarter of 2020. The Phase 1 portion of the ALPHA2 trial was designed to assess the safety and tolerability at increasing dose levels of cema-cel in patients with R/R LBCL. In the fourth quarter of 2022, we proceeded to the Phase 2 portion of the ALPHA2 trial in adult patients with R/R LBCL. We have also sponsored the EXPAND trial of ALLO-647, which was intended to demonstrate the overall contribution of ALLO-647 to the benefit to risk ratio of the lymphodepletion regimen for cema-cel. In January 2024 we announced that we would deprioritize the ALPHA2 R/R LBCL and EXPAND trials to focus on our ALPHA3 trial, which seeks to embed cema-cel as part of a 1L consolidation strategy. We have deprioritized the ALPHA2 R/R LBCL trial primarily because the ALPHA3 trial, if successful, could significantly impact the need for cell therapy in later lines of treatment, including the third line (3L) patients being studied in our ALPHA2 trial. The ALPHA3 trial is an open-label, Phase 2, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of cema-cel in adult patients with LBCL who have completed R-CHOP and have attained a remission, but who test positive for MRD. The ALPHA3 trial will randomize approximately 240 patients who achieve a complete or partial response to 1L therapy, but who test positive for MRD at their end-of-therapy PET/CT assessment. The patients will be randomized to either treatment with cema-cel or the current standard of care, which is observation. The design, with a primary endpoint of EFS, will initially include two lymphodepletion arms (one with standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide plus ALLO-647 and one without ALLO-647). One lymphodepletion arm will be discontinued following a planned interim analysis around mid-2025 designed to select the most appropriate regimen for this patient population. The ALPHA3 trial leverages an investigational diagnostic test developed by Foresight Diagnostics to identify patients who have MRD at the completion of 1L chemoimmunotherapy. Although 1L R-CHOP is curative for many with 14 Table of Contents LBCL, as noted above, approximately 30% of patients treated will relapse. Under the current standard of care, there is no way to determine which patients are at greater risk of relapse after initially responding to 1L treatment, and so the standard of care has been simply to “watch and wait” for the disease to relapse. Foresight Diagnostics, however, has developed a liquid biopsy testing platform for the measurement of MRD. Based on Foresight Diagnostics’ published data, we believe that the Foresight Diagnostics’ assay is highly sensitive and predictive of which patients are likely to relapse. By incorporating the Foresight Diagnostics assay into our ALPHA3 trial design, we believe that we can identify the patient population most at risk for relapse and treat those patients with cema-cel. ALPHA3 takes advantage of cema-cel as a one-time, off-the-shelf treatment that can be administered immediately upon discovery of MRD following six cycles of R-CHOP, potentially positioning cema-cel to become the standard “7th cycle” of frontline treatment available to all eligible patients with MRD. ALPHA3 builds on our belief that administration of CAR T therapies to patients with low disease burden improves both safety and efficacy outcomes. Cema-cel’s Phase 1 safety profile, with low rates of CRS and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), already permits its use in the outpatient setting in R/R patients and may further improve in patients with no radiological evidence of disease. The ALPHA3 trial was initiated in 2024 and enrollment is currently ongoing with 40 sites activated in the United States. Assuming favorable outcomes and subject to FDA discussions, we plan to seek FDA approval of cema-cel, and possibly ALLO-647, based on the ALPHA3 trial. Additionally, assuming favorable outcomes, we anticipate that the ALPHA3 data set could be used to support EU regulatory approval. The EMA has granted Marketing Authorizations for products, even when their clinical development programs did not involve any European sites. These approvals are based on thorough evaluations of the products’ safety, efficacy, and quality. This practice encompasses a wide range of indications and modalities, including those classified as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products by the EMA. Later this year, we plan to seek scientific advice from the EMA to assist us with finalizing our regulatory strategy for the EU and the UK. Additionally, in February 2025, we entered into an Amended and Restated Strategic Collaboration Agreement with Foresight Diagnostics which expands our collaboration to enable the development of Foresight Diagnostics’ MRD assay as a companion diagnostic in the EU, UK, Canada and Australia in support of Allogene’s clinical development of cema-cel. Anti-CD70 Oncology Development Program CD70 is an antigen expressed on several types of cancer cells, with strong expression in RCC and limited off-tumor expression. CD70 is selectively expressed in a portion of other solid tumors and blood cancers. While CD70 can be expressed on activated T cells, ALLO-316 was associated with minimal or no fratricide in preclinical studies, meaning that ALLO-316 cells did not mediate the targeted killing of other ALLO-316 cells. Accordingly, we believe progressing allogeneic CAR T cell products directed against CD70 could be promising in solid tumor indications as well as hematological malignancies. ALLO-316 is manufactured to express a CAR that is designed to target CD70 and gene edited to lack expression of the TCR and CD52 to both minimize the risk of GvHD and to enable use of CD52 monoclonal antibodies to permit a window of persistence of CAR T cells in the patient. In addition, rituximab and CD34 recognition domains have been incorporated in between the scFv and the linker domain, as illustrated below. The rituximab recognition domains allow targeting of cells with rituximab in the event that silencing of CAR T cell activity is desired. The CD34 domain confers recognition by an anti-CD34 antibody, and may be used as a surface marker to monitor ALLO-316 in patients by flow cytometry. 15 Table of Contents In the first half of 2021, we initiated Phase 1 TRAVERSE clinical trial of ALLO-316 in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC. Lead Target Indication: Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ccRCC is the most common subtype of renal cancer. Approximately 81,800 new cases of renal cell carcinoma are estimated to be diagnosed in the United States and 14,890 deaths are estimated in 2023, according to the American Cancer Society. The five-year survival rate for patients with advanced kidney cancer is less than 15%. Systemic therapy (including immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents), surgery, and radiation therapy all may have a role in the treatment paradigm depending on the extent of disease, sites of involvement, and patient-specific factors. While vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapies (e.g. sunitinib) represented a first-line standard for over a decade, these therapies have been quickly supplanted by combination therapies incorporating PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition as the backbone. The combination of VEGF and immune check-point inhibitors, such as axitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively, is often used in the first line setting and has shown a median progression-free survival of 15.1 months with an ORR of 59.3% and CR rate of 5.8%. Patients who progress on immune checkpoint-based combination therapies can be treated with agents including cabozantinib, lenvatinib with everolimus, tivozanib, belzutifan or other therapies. In October 2024, we announced that we received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation for ALLO-316 for adult patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. The RMAT designation was based on Phase 1 clinical data from the TRAVERSE trial indicating the potential of ALLO-316 to address the unmet need for patients with difficult-to-treat RCC who have failed multiple standard RCC therapies, including an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF-targeting therapy. Results from the Phase 1 ALLO-316 TRAVERSE Trial On November 7, 2024, we announced interim results from the Phase 1 TRAVERSE trial of ALLO-316 in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who have progressed on or who are intolerant to standard therapies, including an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF-targeting therapy. Data from dose escalation cohorts and the ongoing Phase 1b expansion cohort were included. The Phase 1b expansion cohort is evaluating safety and efficacy of ALLO-316 at DL2 (80M CAR T cells) following a standard FC500 (fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2/d) for 3 days) lymphodepletion regimen. The interim results provide proof-of-concept demonstrating the promise of an allogeneic CAR T product candidate to treat CD70-expressing RCC with ALLO-316. As of the data extract date of October 14, 2024, 39 patients had been enrolled in the ongoing Phase 1 trial, of which 26 were confirmed to have CD70 positive RCC and were evaluable for efficacy outcomes. Following a single infusion of ALLO-316 in heavily pretreated patients, the trial demonstrated best Overall Response Rate (ORR) of 50% and Confirmed Response Rate of 33% in those patients with CD70 Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) of ≥50% who received DL2. Patients with a TPS of ≥50% comprise the majority of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. Of those with a TPS ≥50, 76% (16/21) experienced a reduction in tumor burden. Two of six (33%) patients with high TPS who received the Phase 1b expansion regimen showed durable responses ongoing at ≥4 months. Response Rates by CD70 Status and Dose 16 Table of Contents Patients Evaluable for Disease Outcomes a (N=34) CD70 Positive (N=26) CD70 Negative or Unknown (N=8) All (N=26) FCA b (N=8) FC c (N=18) DL2 FC500 (Phase 1b) (N=8) Best overall response, d n/N (%) High TPS (≥50) Low TPS (<50) 7/26 (27) 7/21 (33) 0/5 (0) 1/8 (13) 1/6 (17) 0/2 (0) 6/18 (33) 6/15 (40) 0/3 (0) 3/8 (38) 3/6 (50) 0/2 (0) 0/8 (0) NA NA Confirmed ORR, e n/N (%) High TPS (≥50) Low TPS (<50) 5/26 (19) 5/21 (24) 0/5 (0) 1/8 (13) 1/6 (17) 0/2 (0) 4/18 (22) 4/15 (27) 0/3 (0) 2/8 (25) 2/6 (33) 0/2 (0) 0/8 (0) NA NA a Patients evaluable for disease outcome includes those who received ALLO-316 and had at least one tumor assessment. b Standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide plus ALLO-647 c Includes FC300 and FC500 d Best overall response across visits did not require confirmation for CR/PR. e Confirmed overall response of CR/PR required confirmation at the subsequent visit. Regarding safety data, the most common all-grade adverse events were CRS (with only one grade ≥3), fatigue (59%), neutropenia (56%), decreased white blood cell count (54%), anemia (51%) and nausea (51%). ICANS was minimal at 8% and no GvHD occurred. Most Prevalent Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) (>40% Any Grade Incidence) and Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Adverse Event, n(%) All Patients (N=39) DL2 FC500 (N=11) All Grades Grade ≥3 All Grades Grade ≥3 Any TEAE a 39 (100) 29 (81) 11 (100) 8 (73) CRS 24 (62) 1 (3) 8 (73) 0 Fatigue 23 (59) 1 (3) 2 (18) 0 Neutropenia 22 (56) 20 (51) 7 (64) 7 (64) White blood cell count decreased 21/(54) 19 (49) 8 (73) 8 (73) Anemia 20 (51) 13 (33) 7 (64) 5 (46) Nausea 20 (51) 0 3 (27) 0 Thrombocytopenia 18 (46) 10 (26) 7 (64) 3 (27) Pyrexia 16 (41) 2 (5) 4 (36) 0 AEs of Special Interest Any Grade Grade ≥3 Any Grade Grade ≥3 Infection b Viral infections 24 (62) 13 (33) 12 (31) 2 (5) 5 (46) 2 (18) 2 (18) 0 Neurotoxicity c Headache 17 (44) 8 (21) 12 (31) 2 (5) 5 (46) 2 (18) 2 (18) 0 IEC-HS d 5 (13) 1 (3) 2 (18) 0 ICANS 3 (8) 0 3 (27) 0 Graft-versus-host disease 0 0 0 0 a TEAE included all AEs that started from the first dose date of study drug in each treatment period up to start of another treatment period, death, or the date prior to initiation of another anti-cancer agent, whichever occurred first. b Infection events (62%) were primarily low grade; the most common was viral infections (33%) with cytomegalovirus infection and COVID-19 (any grade, 18% and 15%; Grade ≥3, 0% and 5%, respectively). c Neurotoxicity includes system organ class of nerve system disorders and psychiatric disorders with onset date up to Study Day 30 post ALLO-316 infusion. d IEC-HS includes the preferred terms IEC-HS, HLH, Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and atypical HLH. Two patients developed an inflammatory syndrome prior to the existence of IEC-HS as a term in MedDRA, which has been updated as of September 2023. 17 Table of Contents Two dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) events of autoimmune hepatitis and cardiogenic shock were reported. Each event occurred in two separate participants who received FCA (FC300 plus ALLO-647) lymphodepletion and DL2 of ALLO-316. Three Grade 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported: 1) cardiogenic shock, which was one of the two DLT events; 2) sepsis from multi-drug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a participant who received DL4 of ALLO-316. This participant had a prior episode of muscle abscess and bacteremia from the same multi-drug resistant Klebsiella and was receiving anakinra and dexamethasone for hyperinflammation; 3) failure to thrive in a participant 16 months after treatment with ALLO-316. This subject had tumor response of stable disease (SD) at month 12 and no interval scans to evaluate disease status prior to death. Clinical Development Plan The TRAVERSE trial is an open-label, Phase 1, single arm, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of ALLO-316 in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC. Anti-tumor activity, cell kinetics, pharmacodynamics, and correlation of outcome with tumor CD70 expression are evaluated as secondary objectives. We have developed an investigational in vitro companion diagnostic (IVD) assay designed for use in determining CD70 expression levels for patient selection in TRAVERSE. The trial is now deploying the IVD assay for the purposes of identifying patients most likely to benefit from ALLO-316. During the advancement of the TRAVERSE trial with ALLO-316, we have observed allogeneic CAR T cell expansion and persistence driven by CD70 CAR that allows elimination of alloreactive host lymphocytes. This biology has brought the potential for clinical efficacy not often seen in patients with R/R RCC but has also resulted in a hyperinflammatory response in some patients as CD70 CAR T cells expand and persist. Leveraging recent advances in the management of hyperinflammation following autologous CAR T administration, we have developed a diagnostic and treatment algorithm similar to what our management team previously helped develop for CRS and ICANS associated with autologous CAR T. This algorithm may mitigate the treatment-associated hyperinflammatory response without compromising the CAR T function needed to eradicate solid tumors. Enrollment in the Phase 1b cohort has been completed and we are now pausing further standard dosing pending durability results for the enrolled patients. Additional data from the Phase 1b expansion cohort is expected to be announced in mid-2025. Anti-CD19/CD70 Autoimmune Disease Development Program Autoimmune disease (AID) can affect organs throughout the body. B cells and T cells are two key components of the immune system, each playing distinct roles in the body’s defense against pathogens and in maintaining immune tolerance. Effective collaboration between B cells and T cells results in the sustained production of autoantibodies, which are antibodies that mistakenly target and react with a person’s own tissues or organs resulting in AID. Autoantibodies are critical to the pathogenesis of many AIDs. As a result, we believe that disruption of the B cell-T cell network could lead to an effective treatment of AIDs. As noted above, CD19 is an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells, including pathogenic autoreactive B cells. Activated T cells, which upregulate CD70, induce sustained production of autoantibodies by B cells from patients affected by AID. Moreover, CD70 expression is elevated on T cells of patients in certain AIDs, suggesting a pathogenic role for CD70+ T cells in AID. Accordingly, we believe progressing allogeneic CAR T cell therapies directed against CD19 and CD70 could be promising in AID indications. ALLO-329 is manufactured to express two independent CARs designed to target CD19 and CD70. As illustrated below, a single transgene encoding both the CD19 CAR and the CD70 CAR is targeted for insertion into the TRAC locus using site-specific integration, resulting in uniform expression of both CARs and the lack of TCR expression. ALLO-329 is designed to mediate the depletion of CD19+ B cells and pathogenic T cells that upregulate CD70 expression. CD70 is also upregulated on activated B cells and alloreactive lymphocytes. Therefore, ALLO-329 can also target pathogenic CD70+ B cells and prevent allorejection by eliminating CD70+ alloreactive lymphocytes in the patients. The anti-rejection features of ALLO-329 may help reduce or eliminate the need for lymphodepletion prior to treatment with ALLO-329. 18 Table of Contents Lead Target Indications: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Lupus Nephritis, Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies, and Systemic Sclerosis In January 2025 we announced that the FDA has cleared our IND for a rheumatology basket study of ALLO-329. Our RESOLUTION trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALLO-329 across multiple autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (including lupus nephritis), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, and systemic sclerosis. SLE is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues, and is characterized by immune dysregulation, autoantibody production, and inflammation affecting multiple organs. Lupus nephritis (LN) is a serious renal complication of SLE. In LN, the immune system targets the kidneys, leading to inflammation, glomerular damage, and potential renal failure. Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are a group of rare autoimmune diseases characterized by chronic muscle inflammation and progressive weakness, mainly affecting proximal skeletal muscles. Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune connective tissue disorder characterized by vascular dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and progressive fibrosis affecting the skin and internal organs (lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract). Approximately 330,000 cases of SLE (according to Decision Resources Group), 70,000 cases of IIM (according to The Myositis Association), and 100,000 cases of SSc (according to Bergamasco et al, Dove Medical Pres Limited) are estimated to be diagnosed in the United States. These autoimmune diseases generally require targeted immunosuppressive and symptom-specific treatments. SLE is primarily managed with hydroxychloroquine and NSAIDs for mild cases, while severe disease, such as lupus nephritis, necessitates immunosuppressants like mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide, with biologics such as belimumab and anifrolumab for refractory cases. IIM (including polymyositis and dermatomyositis) is typically treated with high-dose corticosteroids, often combined with methotrexate or azathioprine, while severe or refractory cases may require IVIG or rituximab. SSc management focuses on symptom control, with calcium channel blockers for Raynaud’s phenomenon, mycophenolate mofetil for interstitial lung disease, and vasodilators like sildenafil or bosentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Current treatments for SLE, IIM, and SSc have significant limitations, including broad immunosuppression, long-term toxicity, delayed onset of action, disease progression despite therapy, frequent dosing and refractory cases. Clinical Development Plan We are developing ALLO-329, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting both CD19 and CD70 for the treatment of certain autoimmune diseases. Inclusion of an anti-CD70 CAR in ALLO-329 is designed to reduce or eliminate the need for standard chemotherapy by preventing premature rejection while also targeting CD70+ activated lymphocytes, which may play a direct role in AID pathogenesis. Following the clearance of an IND in January 2025, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial (the RESOLUTION trial) of ALLO-329 in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (including lupus nephritis), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, and systemic sclerosis in mid-2025. Future Opportunities Currently, we remain focused on our three key programs described above. As we advance those programs, we may seek to utilize our allogeneic platform to pursue additional targets of interest, particularly through strategic partnerships. These include the additional targets currently in our pipeline as well as other targets that might be validated in the future. For example, we have been developing allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) for treatment of multiple myeloma (ALLO-715), FLT3 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (ALLO-819), DLL3 for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (ALLO-213), and Claudin 18.2 for the treatment of gastric and pancreatic cancer (ALLO-182). 19 Table of Contents Our Manufacturing Strategy We have invested resources to optimize our manufacturing process, including the development of improved analytical methods and instrumentation. We plan to continue to invest in process science, product characterization and manufacturing to continuously improve our manufacturing processes, production and supply chain capabilities over time. Our product candidates are designed and manufactured via platforms comprised of defined unit operations and technologies. Processes are developed from small to larger scales, incorporating compliant procedures to create cGMP conditions. Although we have a platform-based manufacturing model, each product is unique and for each new product candidate, a developmental phase is necessary to individually customize each engineering step and to create a robust procedure that can later be implemented in a cGMP environment to ensure the production of clinical batches. This work is performed in our process development environment to evaluate and assess variability in each step of the process in order to define the most reliable production conditions. We are currently utilizing Cell Forge 1 (CF1) our state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California to manufacture our product candidates. We also utilize separate third-party contractors to manufacture cGMP raw materials that are used for the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as viral vectors that are used to deliver the applicable CAR gene into the T cells. We believe all materials and components utilized in the production of the cell line, viral vector and final T cell product are available from qualified suppliers and suitable for pivotal process development in readiness for registration and commercialization. Although we are utilizing CF1 for clinical manufacturing, we may continue to rely on CDMOs and other third parties for the manufacturing and processing of our product candidates in the future. We also utilize a CDMO in the United States for the manufacture and supply of ALLO-647 and we plan to continue to rely on the CDMO for future production of ALLO-647. We believe the use of contract manufacturing and testing for our first clinical product candidates has allowed us to rapidly prepare for clinical trials in accordance with our development plans. We plan to maintain a robust supply chain with redundant sources of supply comprised of both internal and external infrastructure. We expect CF1 and third-party manufacturers will be capable of providing and processing sufficient quantities of our product candidates to meet anticipated clinical trial demands. Strategic Agreements Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited (Allogene Overland), later renamed Overland Therapeutics Inc. (Overland Therapeutics), was initially established as a joint venture by us and Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. (Overland) pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement (Share Purchase Agreement), dated December 14, 2020. Concurrently, on December 14, 2020, we entered into a License Agreement (License Agreement) with Allogene Overland for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and commercializing certain allogeneic CAR T cell therapies (JV Licensed Products) for patients in greater China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore (the JV Territory). On May 24, 2024, we, Overland, and Allogene Overland entered into a Share Exchange Agreement (Share Exchange Agreement) pursuant to which Overland’s cell therapy business merged into Allogene Overland (the Organizational Restructuring). Under a separate agreement between Overland and HH BioPharma Holdings Ltd. (HBP) executed on May 24, 2024, Overland distributed all Series Seed Preferred Shares of Allogene Overland held by Overland to HBP and HBP has assumed all rights and obligations attached to such shares and all rights and obligations of Overland under the Share Exchange Agreement. In connection with the Organizational Restructuring, on May 24, 2024, we and Allogene Overland PRC, entered into a First Amendment to the License Agreement (the License Amendment) to amend and supplement certain provisions of the License Agreement. Under the License Amendment, we continue to grant Allogene Overland PRC an exclusive license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize the JV Licensed Products in the JV Territory, with us retaining exclusive rights to the JV Licensed Products outside the JV Territory We have also entered into multiple additional strategic agreements and collaborations, including an Asset Contribution Agreement with Pfizer (the Pfizer Agreement), a License Agreement with Cellectis (the Cellectis Agreement), the Servier Agreement, a Collaboration and License Agreement (the Notch Agreement) with Notch Therapeutics Inc. (Notch), a License and Collaboration Agreement with Antion, and a Strategic Collaboration Agreement with Foresight Diagnostics. For additional information regarding our significant agreements, see Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. Intellectual Property 20 Table of Contents Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, as well as novel discoveries, product development technologies, and know-how. Our commercial success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S. and foreign patents and applications related to our 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, confidentiality agreements, and invention assignment agreements to develop and maintain our proprietary position. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and the invention assignment agreements are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed for us by our employees, consultants, or other third parties. We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in our agreements and security measures, either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or independently discovered by competitors. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of using and manufacturing the same. We are actively building our intellectual property portfolio around our product candidates and our discovery programs, based on our own intellectual property as well as licensed intellectual property. Following the execution of the Pfizer Agreement, we are the owner of, co-owner of, or the licensee of multiple patents and patent applications in the United States and worldwide. These licensed assets include rights to the Cellectis TALEN ® gene-editing technology to engineer T cells that lack functional TCRs and to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor cells. We have exclusive worldwide rights to these patents for certain antigen targets, including BCMA, CD70, FLT3, DLL3 and Claudin 18.2, and have U.S., EU, and UK rights to these patents for CD19. We also have rights to Cellectis intellectual property for technology covering an engineered T cell therapy combining CD52 gene knockout in combination with an anti-CD52 antibody for certain products directed against certain antigen targets. For our lead programs, our patent rights are generally composed of patents and pending patent applications that are solely owned by us, co-owned with Servier, co-owned with Cellectis, co-owned with Pfizer, exclusively licensed from Pfizer, exclusively licensed from Servier, or exclusively licensed from Cellectis. Our patent portfolio includes protection for our clinical-stage product candidates, ALLO-501, cema-cel, ALLO-316, ALLO-329, ALLO-715, and ALLO-605, as well as our research-stage candidates. With respect to ALLO-501 and cema-cel, we have an exclusive license from Servier to patent rights in the United States covering compositions of matter of and methods of making and using ALLO-501 and cema-cel. With respect to ALLO-715, ALLO-605 and ALLO-316, we have an exclusive license from Pfizer to patent rights covering ALLO-715, ALLO-605, and ALLO-316 in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions. These rights cover compositions of matter of and methods of making and using ALLO-715, ALLO-605 and ALLO-316. We also have patent rights to the TurboCAR™ technology solely owned by us, including technology that covers the TurboCAR™ construct that is part of ALLO-605. More generally, our patent portfolio and filing strategy is designed to provide multiple layers of protection by pursuing claims directed toward, for example: (1) antigen binding domains directed to the targets of our product candidates; (2) CAR constructs used in our product candidates; (3) methods of treatment for therapeutic indications; (4) manufacturing processes, preconditioning methods, and dosing regimens; and (5) immune evasion and other gene and cell engineering technology. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term, generally, is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In the United States, patent term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term extension of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term extension involves a complex calculation based on the length of time it takes for regulatory review. A patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. Competition 21 Table of Contents Oncology is a highly competitive market for drug development. If successfully developed, our products will compete with therapies that have been developed or are in development at biopharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. We anticipate increasing competition from existing and new cell-based therapies, including products that are both autologous and allogeneic in nature. We also anticipate competition from other therapeutic modalities, including antibodies, bispecific T cell engagers, antibody drug conjugates, and small molecule therapeutics. Autologous T cell therapies directed at CD19 have been commercialized by Novartis, Kite/Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) and are witnessing increased adoption in the marketplace. In August 2017, Novartis obtained FDA approval to commercialize Kymriah® for the treatment of children and young adults with B-cell ALL that is refractory or has relapsed at least twice. In May 2018, Kymriah® received FDA approval for adults with certain types of LBCL who have not responded to, or who have relapsed after, at least two other types of systemic treatment (3rd-line LBCL), and in May 2022, Kymriah® received FDA approval for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. In October 2017, Kite/Gilead obtained FDA approval to commercialize Yescarta®, for the treatment of adult patients with 3rd-line LBCL. This was followed by approval of Yescarta® for R/R FL in March 2021 and approval of 2nd-line LBCL in April 2022. Kite has also received FDA approval for a second autologous CD19-directed T cell therapy, Tecartus®, for use in patients with R/R mantle cell lymphoma and adult patients with R/R B-cell ALL. In February 2021, BMS obtained FDA approval for its anti-CD19 autologous T cell therapy, Breyanzi® for the treatment of adults with 3rd-line LBCL. The label of Breyanzi® label was extended to 2nd-line LBCL in June 2022, R/R Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) in March 2024, R/R FL in May 2024, and R/R Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) in May 2024. Autologous cell therapies directed at BCMA have been commercialized by BMS and Jannsen, a Johnson & Johnson company. In March 2021, BMS and partner 2seventy bio, Inc. received FDA approval of Abecma®, an anti-BCMA autologous T cell therapy, for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior therapies. Jannsen and partner Legend Bio received approval for Carvykti®, an anti-BCMA autologous T cell therapy, for the same indication in February 2022. Both Abecma® and Carvykti® have succeeded in pivotal trials in earlier lines of R/R myeloma and have gained label extensions into this market in 2024. Autologous T cell therapies are being developed by a number of additional companies, including but not limited to 2seventy bio, Inc., Adaptimmune Therapeutics PLC, Alaunos Therapeutics, Inc., Arcellx, Inc., Arsenal Biosciences, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Autolus Therapeutics plc, CARGO Therapeutics, Inc. Eureka Therapeutics, Inc., Galapagos NV, Gilead Sciences, Inc., ImmPACT Bio, USA Inc., Instil Bio, Inc., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., Legend Biotech Corp., Lyell Immunopharma Inc., Mustang Bio, Inc., Triumvira Immunologics, and TScan Therapeutics, Inc. Autologous CAR T therapy has made significant advances in addressing R/R NHL, and has moved to earlier lines of therapy, as further described above. We do not, however, believe that autologous CAR T therapy will be a viable option in the 1L consolidation setting because of the lengthy lead time for the individualized manufacturing process for autologous CAR T. Once it is determined that a patient is MRD positive following standard 1L treatment, we believe that the speed at which a patient is treated with CAR T therapy will enhance response rates. Published results of front-line chemotherapy outcomes suggest that MRD positive patients are likely to progress, and some patients may do so very quickly (i.e., within a matter of weeks after completing 1L therapy). Furthermore, data suggests that patients who have low burden of disease when they receive CAR T cells tend to have better safety and efficacy outcomes, including lower rates of CRS and more durable remissions. As a result, we believe that it will be important that patients receive CAR T therapy as soon as possible following an MRD positive diagnosis, which will not allow for the lengthy manufacturing process of autologous CAR T. Allogeneic T cell products have yet to receive FDA approval though the number of companies developing allogeneic product candidates is substantial. These include AstraZeneca, plc, Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Beam Therapeutics, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Imugene Ltd., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Legend Biotech Corp., Precision Biosciences, Inc., and Sana Biotechnology, Inc. Some of the allogeneic T cell candidates under development target the same antigens that are part of our clinical pipeline, such as CD19, BCMA and CD70. Additionally, Cellectis has several fully-owned allogeneic CAR T programs that could compete with programs that fall outside our agreement with Cellectis. There are also cell therapies under development that are based upon cell types other than the common type of T cells used by us and known as alpha/beta T cells. These include product candidates derived from natural killer cells, natural killer T cells, gamma/delta T cells and macrophage cells. Companies developing such therapies include Adicet Bio, Inc., Artiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., Carisma Therapeutics, Inc., Cytovia Therapeutics, Inc., Celularity, Inc., Century Therapeutics, Inc., Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Gamida Cell Ltd., In8bio, Inc., Lyell Immunopharma, Inc., Nkarta, Inc., Shoreline Bio, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Competition may also arise from non-cell based immune oncology platforms. For instance, we may experience competition from companies, such as AbbVie, Inc., Amgen Inc., BMS, Compass Therapeutics, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche 22 Table of Contents AG, Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Immunocore Holdings plc, Johnson & Johnson, MacroGenics, Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., Merus N.V., Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Xencor Inc., that are pursuing bispecific T cell engagers that target both the cancer antigen and T cell receptor, thus bringing both cancer cells and T cells in close proximity to maximize the likelihood of an immune response to the cancer cells. Multiple bi-specific T cell engagers targeting BCMA for myeloma and CD20 for lymphoma are advancing rapidly in development and the first products in each category gained FDA approval in 2022. Additionally, companies, such as ADC Therapeutics SA, Amgen Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, ImmunoGen, Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Sutro Biopharma, Inc. are pursuing antibody drug conjugates, which utilize the targeting ability of antibodies to deliver cell-killing agents directly to cancer cells. In addition to the significant competition noted above in oncology markets, as early data in the use of CAR T cell therapy for the treatment of autoimmune disease has been emerging since 2022, there have been many companies initiating autologous and/or allogeneic cell therapy development programs that would be in direct competition to our autoimmune program. For example, we may experience competition in these markets from companies such as Adicet Bio, Inc., Arcellx, Inc., Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, BMS, Cabaletta Bio, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Gracell Biotechnologies, Inc., ImmPACT Bio USA, Inc., Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc., Nkarta, Inc., Novartis, Sana Biotechology, Inc., and TG Therapeutics Inc. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, pre-clinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we do. Future collaborations and mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors. Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are better tolerated, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost of manufacturing. These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, and investor capital, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Government Regulation and Product Approval As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our cell products will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated, and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a BLA for marketing authorization. Our products are considered more than minimally manipulated and will require evaluation in clinical trials and the submission and approval of a BLA before we can market them. Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. U.S. Product Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and their implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to 23 Table of Contents administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. We have been placed on clinical hold previously and any future agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practices (GLPs) and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • approval by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial is commenced; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices (GCPs) and any additional requirements for the protection of human research patients and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use; • submission to the FDA of a BLA for marketing approval that includes substantial evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials, and which is validated as complete for review by the FDA; • satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable; • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practices (GTPs) for the use of human cellular and tissue products; • potential FDA audit of the nonclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and • FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA. Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials. Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research patients provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Certain clinical trials involving human gene transfer research also must be overseen by an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), a standing committee to provide peer review of the safety of research plans, procedures, personnel training and environmental risks of work involving recombinant DNA molecules. IBCs are typically assigned certain review responsibilities relating to the use of recombinant DNA molecules, including reviewing potential environmental risks, assessing containment levels, and evaluating the adequacy of facilities, personnel training, and compliance with the National Institutes of Health Guidelines. We may also engage an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, to provide authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries. 24 Table of Contents Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. • Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule. • Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk to benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Long term follow-up for all patients who get marketed product and post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be required after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. U.S. Review and Approval Processes After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA submission must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. Within 60 or 74 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and 25 Table of Contents preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the GTPs, to the extent applicable. These are FDA regulations and guidance documents that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissue, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control. Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited 26 Table of Contents circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Unique to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation was established by FDA to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any drug that meets the following criteria: (1) it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. Once approved, when appropriate, the FDA can permit fulfillment of post-approval requirements under accelerated approval through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory datasets; or through post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with the therapy prior to approval. Breakthrough therapy designation is also intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening conditions. The designation by FDA requires preliminary clinical evidence that a product candidate, alone or in combination with other drugs and biologics, demonstrates substantial improvement over currently available therapy on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review. 27 Table of Contents Fast track designation, priority review, RMAT and Breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Post-Approval Requirements Any products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although a physician may prescribe a legally available product for an off-label use, if the physician deems such product to be appropriate in his/her professional medical judgment, a manufacturer may not market or promote off-label uses. However, it is permissible to share in certain circumstances truthful and not misleading information that is consistent with the product’s approved labeling. In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development. U.S. Marketing Exclusivity The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. The BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. This 12-year period of data exclusivity may be extended by six months, for a total of 12.5 years, if the FDA requests that the innovator company conduct pediatric clinical investigations of the product. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years, as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA. 28 Table of Contents Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial. FDA Approval and Regulation of Medical Devices and Companion Diagnostics If safe and effective use of a therapeutic depends on an in vitro diagnostic, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic device is not approved or cleared for that indication. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. The review of in vitro companion diagnostics in conjunction with the review of our product candidates in development for cancer will, therefore, likely involve coordination of review by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the U.S., the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, medical devices, including companion diagnostic tests, require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification (“510(k) clearance”) and premarket approval (“PMA”). To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification submission demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed predicate device. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to twelve months but may take longer. The FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device currently on the market, it will grant 510(k) clearance to commercially market the device. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device, the device is automatically designated as a Class III (i.e., high-risk) device. The device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous PMA requirements or can request a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the “de novo” process, which is a route to market for novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or depending on the modification, approval of a PMA application or de novo classification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), de novo classification or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until it receives 510(k) clearance, approval of a PMA application, or issuance of a de novo classification. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. In addition, PMAs for certain devices must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, a PMA application typically requires data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the QSR which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements. Approval of a PMA is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application is favorable, the FDA typically issues an approvable letter requiring the applicant’s agreement to specific conditions, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to 29 Table of Contents secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. Once granted, approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards are not maintained, or problems are identified following initial marketing. After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the U.S. Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments). For example, our business practices, including any of our research and future sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may be required to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the patient data privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), transparency requirements, and similar state, local and foreign laws, each as amended. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item, good, facility or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and other individuals and entities on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Additionally, the intent standard under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act), to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Rather, if “one purpose” of the remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codified case law that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act (discussed below). The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to, among others, a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for a medical or other item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. For example, pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have 30 Table of Contents been, and continue to be, investigated or prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their implementing regulations, imposes requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates that are independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity as well as their covered subcontractors. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) annually report information to CMS related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians and teaching hospitals and certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state 31 Table of Contents healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Healthcare Reform In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, the Affordable Care Act has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. There have been legal and political challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and any additional healthcare reform measures will impact the Affordable Care Act. Further legislation or regulation could be passed that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and will stay in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. 32 Table of Contents Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and federal and state legislative activity designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years covered under Medicare (the “Medicare Price Negotiation Program”) and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon price of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions may, for example, include directives to reduce agency workforce, rescinding a previous executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending and eliminating a previous executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (“Loper Bright”), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We anticipate that these and other healthcare reform efforts will continue to result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and 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. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Additional Regulation In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We 33 Table of Contents believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA or ex-US approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, all cell therapy products are considered advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and a clinical trial application must be submitted centrally in accordance with EU clinical trial regulations (CTR) for review by a rapporteur appointed by a member state within the EU region. In addition, an independent ethics committee is needed in each country, much like the IRB, in the US. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Privacy Laws and Regulations In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work process personal and sensitive data. Accordingly, we are, and may in the future become, subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, including federal, state, local, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards related to data privacy, security, and protection. For example, in addition to EU regulations related to the approval and commercialization of our products, our activities in the EU subject us to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR). The EU GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EU, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The EU GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the EU GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. The EU GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we are subject to the EU GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the EU GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests, and other administrative penalties. The EU GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules. 34 Table of Contents Additionally, numerous US states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, affords California residents certain rights related to their personal data, including the right to opt-out of certain sales of personal data. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. As our business progresses, the CCPA may become applicable and impact (possibly significantly) our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. Many other US states have passed similar comprehensive privacy laws, and more are likely to do so in the future. See the section titled “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Business and Industry” and “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Government Regulation” for additional information about the laws and regulations to which we may become subject and about the risks to our business associated with such laws and regulations. Human Capital As of March 1, 2025, we had 229 total employees, of which 226 are full-time. Of our full-time employees, 48 hold Ph.D. and/or M.D. degrees, and 186 are engaged in research, development and technical operations. Most of our employees are located in South San Francisco and Newark, California. Our employees are not represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe that our employee morale is healthy and consider our relationship with our employees to be good. We believe our workforce is key to Allogene’s success and we actively focus on the following core elements of human capital: (1) our “One Allogene” culture, (2) belonging, fairness and representation and (3) recruitment, development and retention. We have also strived to create a safe working environment and have increased onsite presence since the end of the pandemic. One Allogene Culture We express our culture under the framework of “One Allogene”: One Allogene We only succeed as a team. We accomplish more together than as individuals when we unite as one Allogene community. We are resilient, because we strive to save the lives of people with cancer and improve the lives of people with autoimmune disorders. We come together with purpose, courage and flexibility despite challenges or uncertainty because every potential patient is someone’s partner, parent, child, sibling or friend. We aim for excellence and give it our all. We pursue scientific innovation with a focus on quality and integrity in everything we do to forever change how cancer is treated. We take ownership and get things done. We are leaders who embrace urgency, initiative and follow through, with the humility to know each one of us is vital to making AlloCAR T™ therapy a reality. We are good to one another. We value distinct perspectives, backgrounds and expertise, we earn each other’s trust, and assume good intention as we collaborate to help patients. We are creating a scientific revolution. We are One Allogene These core elements of our culture are meant to define how and why we do business. In addition, our core values of collaboration, leadership, innovation and focus help drive our culture and behaviors and are layered into our performance reviews so that we can keep ourselves and our employees accountable. 35 Table of Contents Belonging, Fairness and Representation We are committed to cultivating, fostering, and preserving a culture of belonging, fairness and representation where we foster a supportive, empowering and positive environment through respect, collaboration, and open communication. We embrace and encourage differences across all demographics that make our employees unique. We also embrace differences in experience and background, and welcome different opinions and unique perspectives when making decisions. We believe that in cultivating this environment, our staff feel that they are able to contribute to their full potential. As of March 1, 2025, the general demographic makeup of our workforce remains generally consistent with past years. We are proud of our efforts to attract the best talent from the broadest pool of talent and we continue to focus on broadening our outreach to extend to all groups by posting our open positions on a variety of top job boards to seek a wide range of qualified candidates. We have and will continue to conduct training for interviewers and hiring managers to ensure they are making decisions based solely on facts, not assumptions, or irrelevant information. Our recruiters and hiring managers have active talent recruitment strategies to ensure that we are reaching the best talent available and giving qualified job applicants the opportunity to compete for positions. Our initiatives embrace and complement our One Allogene culture by ensuring that our Company and its employees are taking responsibility for ensuring a supportive, empowering and positive work environment where employees feel valued, engaged and fully committed to our mission to serve patients. These initiatives are applicable to our practices and policies, such as those on recruitment, compensation and professional development. We are also progressing the ongoing development of an supportive work environment grounded in psychological safety that encourages: • Respectful communication and cooperation between all employees. • Valuing and soliciting input, feedback and opinions from relevant staff. • Teamwork and employee participation, permitting the representation of employee perspectives. • Employer and employee contributions to the communities we serve to promote a greater understanding and respect for others. To champion our efforts in this area, we established a governance structure and formed a cross-functional committee (Committee) comprised of employees of various levels, departments and backgrounds to help advance and promote our commitment to maintaining the culture described above, and the responsibility of our employees to treat others with dignity and respect at all times regardless of our differences. All employees are also encouraged to attend and complete annual awareness training to enhance their knowledge to fulfill this responsibility. The Committee continually works to respond to feedback provided by peers, and present suggestions on our practices and policies to encourage and enforce an environment in which all employees feel that they are part of our team and empowered to achieve their best. We believe in equal pay for equal work. We establish components and ranges of compensation based on market and benchmark data. Within this context, we strive to pay all employees fairly within a reasonable range, taking into consideration factors such as role; market data; internal consistency; job location; relevant experience; and individual, department and company performance. We also regularly review our compensation practices and analyze our compensation decisions for individual employees and our workforce as a whole on at least an annual basis. Since 2020, we have conducted a pay analysis annually which we believe demonstrates that our compensation practices and structure are fair. Recruitment, Development and Retention Successful execution of our strategy is dependent on attracting, developing and retaining our employees. We have and believe we will continue to face significant competition for life science talent. We believe, however, that our leadership in the field of allogeneic cell therapy and our culture have allowed us to recruit a talented workforce. In 2024, we recruited over 34 new employees. Our average time to hire was less than 48 days and over 85% of candidates accepted our offers. We believe our total compensation package also helps recruit and retain our employees. We strive to provide pay, benefits, and services that are competitive to market and create incentives to attract and retain employees. Our compensation package includes market-competitive pay, broad-based stock grants, health care and 401(k) plan benefits, paid time off and family leave, among others. We also provide annual incentive bonus opportunities that are tied to both company performance as well as individual performance to foster a pay-for-performance culture. Developing our employees is important, and we focus on providing training opportunities and promotional opportunities. Learning and development, training and other resources are an integral part of retaining our employees and creating a culture of learning and leadership within Allogene. Our training offerings provide staff with a variety of opportunities to learn, enhance and practice fundamental leadership skills to enable them to be more effective in their roles and develop their skills for further growth. We also train relevant members of our team on important environmental health and safety topics to help ensure we protect our people and our environment as we operate our business. We encourage our employees to participate 36 Table of Contents and take advantage of a variety of learning and development resources, including online business skills courses, professional development events, and external training programs based on individual needs. We also actively review employee performance and business needs every six months that lead to promotional opportunities for employees across departments and levels. Employee Safety One key aspect of our One Allogene culture is the principle that “We Aim for Excellence and Give it Our All,” and that includes prioritizing safety. Ingrained in that concept is the tenet to follow all health and safety policies and procedures and prioritize the safety of our team. To maintain a safe and healthy workplace, we have a comprehensive Environment, Health and Safety program that focuses on key risk mitigation programs that identify, assess, and correct hazards. We also have a task-based safety training program that is designed for staff to be assigned the appropriate training to understand how to safely perform their duties. Corporate Information We were incorporated in Delaware in November 2017. Our principal executive offices are located at 210 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 457-2700. Our corporate website address is www.allogene.com. We make available, free of charge on our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Alternatively, you may access these reports at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this report, and the inclusion of our website address in this report is an inactive textual reference only. 37 Table of Contents Item 1A. Risk Factors RISK FACTORS An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. We have identified the following material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this Annual Report. The occurrence of any of the following risks could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this Annual Report and those we may make from time to time. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs We have incurred net losses in every period since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses in the future. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We are advancing an allogeneic CAR T platform of primarily early-stage product candidates and have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, securing related intellectual property rights, building our product manufacturing infrastructure, including a dedicated good manufacturing practices (GMP) manufacturing facility, manufacturing our clinical product candidates and conducting discovery, research and development activities for our programs. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2024, we reported a net loss of $257.6 million. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.8 billion. We expect to incur significant expenditures for the foreseeable future, and we expect these expenditures to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, product candidates based on our engineered allogeneic T cell platform. Because our allogeneic T cell product candidates are based on new technologies and will require the creation of inventory of mass-produced, off-the-shelf product, they will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, costs to treat patients with relapsed or refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates can be significant. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed our clinical trials on hold in October 2021, which suspended our clinical programs prior to resolution of the hold in January 2022. Even if we succeed in advancing our clinical trials and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. We expect to spend a substantial amount of capital in the development and manufacture of our product candidates. We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. In particular, we will require substantial additional financing to enable commercial production of our products and initiate and complete registrational trials for multiple products in multiple regions. Further, if approved, we will require significant additional capital in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates. As of December 31, 2024, we had $373.1 million in cash and cash equivalents and investments. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend 38 Table of Contents more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner than we currently anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently plan. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and our stock price has faced extreme volatility and has declined. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities or to the extent that we may issue equity securities in connection with a strategic transaction, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline. We may fail to meet our publicly announced guidance or other expectations about our business, which would cause our stock price to decline. We may provide guidance regarding our expected financial and business performance, such as projections regarding our cash runway and projected clinical development and/or regulatory milestones. Correctly identifying key factors affecting business conditions and predicting future events is an inherently uncertain process and our guidance may not ultimately be accurate. Our guidance is based on certain assumptions relating to our expenses which may fluctuate based on how quickly we are able to execute on our operational initiatives, such as the timing of initiation of clinical trials and the rate of enrollment in such trials, and the timing of certain milestone payments, manufacturing expenses, employee expenses, facility expenses, and potential modifications of existing or the establishment of new partnership agreements. If our assumptions are not met or are impacted as a result of various risks and uncertainties, we may have to raise additional capital sooner than we currently expect and the market value of our common stock could decline significantly. Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our operations, and those of our CDMOs, contract research organizations (CROs), clinical trial sites and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to business disruptions, including those caused by earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, cybersecurity attacks, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics or pandemics, wars and other geopolitical conflicts (such as Russia's military action against Ukraine and the Israel–Hamas conflict), bank failures, adverse legislative actions and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire and flood zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire and flood zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster. Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry could adversely affect our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations. Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to bank failures and market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank and Silvergate Capital Corp. were each swept into receivership. In addition, on May 1, 2023, the FDIC seized First Republic Bank and sold its assets to JPMorgan Chase & Co. It is uncertain whether the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal 39 Table of Contents Reserve Board will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion. We maintain the majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts at banking institutions in the United States that we believe are of high quality. Cash held in these accounts often exceed the FDIC insurance limits. If such banking institutions were to fail, we could lose all or a portion of amounts held in excess of such insurance limitations. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Any inability to access or delay in accessing these funds could adversely affect our business and financial position. Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to cash in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect the financial institutions with which we have banking relationships. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry. These factors could also include factors involving financial markets or the financial services industry generally. The results of events or concerns that involve one or more of these factors could include a variety of material and adverse impacts on our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations. These could include, but may not be limited to, delayed access to deposits or other financial assets or the uninsured loss of deposits or other financial assets; or termination of cash management arrangements and/or delays in accessing or actual loss of funds subject to cash management arrangements. In addition, widespread investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks, adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations or result in violations of federal or state wage and hour laws. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations. Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited. U.S. federal net operating losses incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal net operating loss carryforwards in a taxable year is limited to 80% of taxable income in such year. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in the equity ownership of certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. As a result of our initial public offering (IPO) in October 2018 and private placements and other transactions that have occurred since our incorporation, we may have experienced an “ownership change”. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. We anticipate incurring significant additional net losses for the foreseeable future, and our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards associated with any such losses to offset future taxable income may be limited to the extent we incur future ownership changes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating loss carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California imposed limits on the usability of California state net operating losses to offset taxable income in tax years beginning after 2023 and before 2027. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows. Risks Related to Our Business and Industry Our product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and the likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval. We have concentrated our research, development and manufacturing efforts on our engineered allogeneic T cell therapy and our future success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. We are in the early stages of developing our platform and we have experienced significant development challenges, such as with the prior clinical hold by the FDA, and there can be no assurance that any development problems we have now or experience in the future will not cause 40 Table of Contents significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be overcome. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial facilities or partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, since we are in the early stages of clinical development, we do not know all the doses to be evaluated in pivotal trials or, if approved, commercially. Finding a suitable dose for our cell therapy product candidates as well as ALLO-647 may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. These unknowns and other emerging findings from our clinical trials may result in protocol amendments, which may result in additional costs and may also delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. In addition, our expectations with regard to our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors. We are also advancing product candidates against unexplored targets and with new technology. For example, we are advancing ALLO-316 against the CD70 target, and ALLO-329 against CD19 and CD70 targets. ALLO-316 may have limited efficacy, even accounting for the selection of patients with CD70 positive tumors, or have off-target toxicities. As a dual-targeting CAR T product candidate, ALLO-329 may demonstrate limited ability to target and eliminate cells, including both B and T lymphocytes, that express one or both targets. Additionally, there may be unexpected toxicity, such as severe or prolonged immunosuppression or hyperinflammation, arising from targeting both CD19 and CD70 simultaneously. Since CD70 is found on activated T and other immune cells, ALLO-316 and ALLO-329 may also cause fratricide resulting in the loss of ALLO-316 or ALLO-329 cells, either during the manufacturing process or after the cells are administered to patients, or may deplete host T or other immune cells. CAR T administration and/or the lymphodepletion that is required before administration of CAR T cells, may increase the risk of prolonged blood cell count suppression (cytopenia) or other adverse events including infections or inflammatory conditions such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and/or immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS), which can be life-threatening and results in death. These events have been observed in our clinical trials and have resulted in pausing enrollment or requiring protocol amendments. For example, in our ongoing ALLO-316 TRAVERSE trial, we implemented risk mitigation measures for IEC-HS, which delayed and increased the cost of conducting the clinical trial. In our ALPHA3 trial, we are advancing cema-cel for the treatment of patients with LBCL who have completed R-CHOP and have attained a remission, but who still test positive for minimal residual disease (MRD). As part of this trial, under Investigational Device Exemption (IDE), we are using an investigational assay developed by Foresight Diagnostics to determine if a patient is MRD positive. The MRD assay represents a novel approach to detecting the presence of minimal disease and the design of our trial is based on certain assumptions regarding the performance of the MRD assay, including assumptions regarding the anticipated MRD+ rate being consistent with published data. There is a risk that the assay may not function as intended and that the assay may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect the presence of low levels of MRD or sufficiently specific to avoid unacceptable rates of false positives. There is also a risk that the MRD+ rate observed in ALPHA3 may be lower than the previously reported rates as a result of the patient population screened, availability of sufficient patient test material, the performance of the test, and other factors that differ from previously reported rates. In addition, there are logistical risks with collecting and sending patient samples to Foresight Diagnostics for testing, and there is a risk that the MRD assay will not be timely performed on the patient samples. If the MRD assay does not function as intended (e.g., false negatives/positives, or the MRD+ rate is lower than expected), or if the MRD assay is not timely performed on patient samples, it could negatively impact the rate of enrollment, the clinical results of, or the feasibility of the ALPHA3 trial, or negatively impact the market opportunity for cema-cel. In addition, we are reliant on Foresight Diagnostics to perform MRD testing. A delay or failure by Foresight Diagnostics to perform MRD testing may negatively impact our ability to conduct ALPHA3 trial as planned, or prevent us from conducting ALPHA3 trial. The clinical study requirements of the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. For example, the regulatory approval process for cema-cel based on our ALPHA3 trial is more complex because it pairs the approval of cema-cel with a companion diagnostic test. We also face additional challenges in obtaining regulatory approval for ALLO-647, which we use as part of our lymphodepletion regimen, and for which we would seek to obtain approval concurrently with approval of a CAR T cell product candidate. Approvals by the European Commission and FDA for existing autologous CAR T therapies, such as Kymriah® and Yescarta®, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. 41 Table of Contents Also, the use of healthy donor material in our allogeneic CAR T product candidates may create product variability challenges for us, and we do not yet fully understand the impact of donor variability on clinical outcomes. More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) or chromosomal abnormalities not experienced with autologous products. Additionally, any Phase 2 trial results, such as in the ALPHA3 trial, may not be representative of Phase 1 results, which were based on limited patients and a patient population in an advanced stage or LBCL, and such Phase 2 trial results may not be accepted by the FDA as pivotal and sufficient for cema-cel approval, and additional trials may be required to establish that cema-cel is safe and effective. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data of our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal new adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business. Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates. If we are unable to advance clinical development, obtain approval of and successfully commercialize our lead product candidates for the treatment of patients in approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed. Our business and future success depends on our ability to advance clinical development, obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, our lead product candidates. Because cema-cel, ALLO-316, ALLO-715 and ALLO-605, products designed for use in patients with cancer, and ALLO-329, designed for use in patients with autoimmune disease, are or will be among the first allogeneic products to be evaluated in the clinic, the failure of any such product candidates, or the failure of other allogeneic T cell therapies, including for reasons due to safety, efficacy or durability, may impede our ability to develop our product candidates, and significantly influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions in regard to the viability of our entire pipeline of allogeneic T cell therapies. For instance, all of our clinical trials were previously put on clinical hold due to an observation in the phase 1 portion of the ALPHA2 trial. While the clinical hold has been resolved, we could be subject to a clinical hold in the future due to unexpected observations, adverse patient outcomes or other issues. All of our product candidates, including our lead product candidates, will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, because our other product candidates are based on similar technology as our lead product candidates, if any of the lead product candidates encounters additional safety issues, efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. The policies of the FDA, the competent authorities of the European Union Member States (EU Member States), the EMA, the European Commission and other comparable regulatory authorities responsible for clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union recently evolved. The European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the European Union Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized European Union portal. Once the clinical trial is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier date if the related clinical trial application was made on the basis of the CTR or if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework before January 31, 2025. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that have halted and could in the future halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences. Future undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory 42 Table of Contents approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Approved autologous CAR T therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of CRS, neurotoxicity including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), serious infections, prolonged cytopenia and hypogammaglobulinemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome (HLH/MAS), immune effector cell-associated HLH-like syndrome (IEC-HS) and adverse events have resulted in the death of patients. We have observed certain of these adverse events for our allogeneic CAR T product candidates. Other adverse events could also emerge in autologous CAR T therapies over time. For instance, patients who received an autologous anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy have experienced neurocognitive and hypokinetic movement disorder with features of Parkinson's disease that emerged months after treatment and may have been due to BCMA expression within the brain. Our anti-BCMA product candidates have the risk of causing similar adverse events. In January 2024 the FDA sent letters to all companies with approved autologous CAR T therapies requesting them to add a black box warning on the label of their autologous CAR T therapies. The FDA is requiring label updates to include a black box warning that T-cell malignancies may occur following treatment with BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. The required warnings are specific to autologous therapies. Such T-cell malignancies have been observed in approximately 1 patient for every 1,000 patients treated with autologous therapies. Because our allogeneic therapies are based on similar technology, until we have treated more patients, there is a risk that we may find similar T-cell malignancies following treatment with our allogeneic CAR T product candidates. If such malignancies are observed, regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, may require a similar black box warning or other safety-related labeling statements on our products’ label, if approved, which could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates may also cause unique adverse events related to the differences between the donor and patients, such as GvHD or infusion reactions. In addition, we utilize a lymphodepletion regimen, which generally includes combinations of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647, that may cause serious adverse events. For instance, because some regimens are expected to cause a deep and sometimes prolonged immune suppression, patients will have an increased risk of infection that may be unable to be cleared by the patient and ultimately lead to other serious adverse events or death. Our lymphodepletion regimen has caused such adverse events and may also cause prolonged cytopenia and aplastic anemia. We are also exploring various dosing strategies for lymphodepletion in our clinical trials, such as including varying doses of the chemotherapy agents and/or ALLO-647 or eliminating one or more of the agents, which may alter the risk of serious adverse events or have other undesirable outcomes such as a reduction of the efficacy of treatment. In our and Servier's clinical trials of allogeneic CAR T product candidates, the most common severe or life-threatening adverse events resulted from CRS, serious infections, febrile neutropenia, prolonged cytopenia including prolonged pancytopenia, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, hypokalemia, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, neutropenic sepsis and aplastic anemia. As reported, patients have died from adverse events and future patients may also experience toxicity resulting in death. For additional safety data, please see the section entitled "Business—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy" included in this Annual Report. As we treat and re-treat more patients with our product candidates in our clinical trials, new less common side effects may also emerge or increased incidence of previously observed side effects may occur. There is a risk that the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree that sufficient mitigating procedures are included in our protocols to address such side effects, and FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may impose a clinical hold as it evaluates risks associated with such side effects and/or as we work with the agency to implement protocol amendments to appropriately manage such side effects. For instance, we observed a chromosomal abnormality that led to a previous clinical hold on our clinical trials. While our investigation concluded that the chromosomal abnormality had no clinical significance and was unrelated to our manufacturing process, our manufacturing processes include gene engineering by using viral vectors and genomic nucleases that may in the future cause insertion, deletion, or chromosomal translocation that may result in allogeneic CAR T cells to proliferate uncontrollably and adverse events. We may also combine the use of our product candidates with other investigational or approved therapies that may cause separate adverse events or events related to the combination. If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Any data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, 43 Table of Contents these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, insufficient durability of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products. In addition, for any trials that may be completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. For example, FDA may determine that results from our Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial are not sufficient to establish that cema-cel is safe and effective, and FDA may require additional trials. Additionally, although the EMA has previously approved CAR T products based on US clinical trial data which did not include any European sites, the regulatory landscape for CAR T products continues to evolve, and the EMA may require us to conduct clinical trials in the EU in order to obtain approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. No CAR T therapy has been approved as part of a first-line consolidation strategy for the treatment of LBCL patients, which presents significant regulatory, commercial, and operational risks, and there is no assurance of success in this unproven setting. To date, no CAR T therapy has been approved for use as part of a first-line consolidation treatment for patients with LBCL, and the regulatory and commercial landscape remains uncertain. Because there is no precedent for regulatory approval of a CAR T therapy in this treatment paradigm, we may face unexpected challenges in generating sufficient clinical data to support an approval, and regulatory authorities may impose additional requirements or take longer than anticipated to evaluate our data. Additionally, the standard of care for first-line treatment in LBCL is well-established, and physicians and patients may be reluctant to adopt CAR T therapy in this setting due to concerns over safety, efficacy, cost, or logistical challenges associated administration. If our product candidate does not demonstrate compelling clinical benefit over existing treatments or fails to gain market acceptance, we may not achieve the commercial success necessary to sustain our business. Furthermore, payers and reimbursement authorities may be unwilling to provide coverage for CAR T therapy as a first-line consolidation treatment, particularly if they perceive it as too costly compared to existing alternatives. Even if we obtain regulatory approval, lack of adequate reimbursement could limit patient access and materially impact our ability to generate revenue. The success of our clinical trial and potential approval in this setting is also dependent on factors outside of our control, such as evolving treatment paradigms, competitive developments, and changes in clinical practice. If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain approval for, and commercialize our CAR T therapy in this novel setting, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected. 44 Table of Contents The time required for regulatory approval of the CLARITY assay in jurisdictions outside the U.S. may be protracted, which presents regulatory, operational, and commercialization risks. In certain foreign jurisdictions, such as European Union (EU), we anticipate that the CLARITY assay will be regulated as an in vitro diagnostic medical device. The timeline for this approval of CLARITY in jurisdictions outside the US may be protracted due to the evolving regulatory landscape for medical devices, particularly in the EU, the complexity of demonstrating clinical utility for novel MRD assays, and potential resourcing constraints, such as within EU regulatory bodies. Further, we do not own or control the CLARITY assay or its regulatory approval process. As a result, we are dependent on others to complete the necessary regulatory filings, respond to inquiries from regulators, and obtain regulatory approvals, such as EU CTA approval, in a timely manner. If they experience delays, fail to meet regulatory requirements, or prioritize other programs over the CLARITY assay, our clinical development efforts outside the US could be significantly delayed. We may have limited visibility into the approval timeline and decision-making process, which could hinder our ability to accurately forecast any trial initiation and enrollment. Any delay in regulatory approvals of the CLARITY assay, such as a delay in a CTA approval in the EU, could slow patient recruitment and impact the overall timeline of our cema-cel clinical development program. If regulatory challenges prevent the assay from being approved in a reasonable timeframe, we may be forced to identify and validate an alternative MRD assay, which could require additional clinical studies, regulatory interactions, and investment of resources, further delaying our program. Furthermore, an alternative MRD assay with sufficient sensitivity may not exist. Additionally, if the CLARITY assay is required for commercial use alongside cema-cel, its approval and reimbursement as a medical device could impact the market adoption of cema-cel. Since we do not control the approval or commercialization strategy of the assay, our ability to ensure its availability, pricing, and regulatory compliance will be limited. If Foresight encounters regulatory setbacks or is unable to secure timely approval, our ability to commercialize cema-cel may be adversely affected. If the approval of the CLARITY assay in any country or region is delayed, denied, or subject to additional regulatory requirements, our cema-cel clinical development timeline, regulatory approval prospects, and potential commercial success in such country or region could be materially impacted, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and future growth. Phase 1 data from our clinical trials is limited and may change as more patient data becomes available or may not be validated in any future or advanced clinical trial. Data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available. Phase 1 results are preliminary in nature and should not be viewed as predictive of ultimate success. It is possible that such results will not continue or may not be repeated in any clinical trial of our product candidates. For instance, our Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial design is based in part on Phase 1 data from a limited number of patients treated with various doses of ALLO-501 or cema-cel manufactured using the Alloy process, and the larger Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial, which we anticipate will only include cema-cel manufactured internally at CF1, but may ultimately also include cema-cel manufactured at a contract manufacturer, may not be consistent with the Phase 1 results. Furthermore, because ALPHA3 will include a different patient population versus our Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial, i.e., patients having MRD after front-line treatment versus patients with radiographically measurable disease after a minimum of two prior lines of treatment, it is possible that cema-cel may behave differently in terms of expansion, persistence and the ability to eradicate residual disease. In addition, our experience with our CD19 and BCMA programs indicates that manufacturing can impact clinical outcomes. The manufacturing runs we have completed and tested in the clinic are limited across our product candidates and any manufacturing variability that impacts clinical outcomes would significantly harm our business and prospects. We may also fail to develop any optimized manufacturing processes for any of our programs. Ultimately, if we cannot manufacture our product candidates with consistent and reproducible product characteristics, our ability to develop and commercialize any product candidate would be significantly impacted. Phase 1 trials of novel products also commonly include a dose exploration phase during which adverse effects of treatment may emerge at higher doses that are new, unexpected, or occur at higher-than-expected frequencies or severity and may limit our ability to develop such products in one or more target indications or patient populations. Similarly, in dose expansion phase, we may discover that adverse effects, either known or novel, may negatively impact the emerging overall benefit-risk profile of our product candidates and may lead to the discontinuation or other significant alteration to the development plan. 45 Table of Contents Preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, initial, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. We may not be able to submit INDs or equivalent foreign applications to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not permit us to proceed. We plan to submit INDs or IND amendments and equivalent foreign applications for additional product candidates or indications in the future. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND or IND amendment or an equivalent foreign application will result in the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. The manufacturing of allogeneic CAR T cell therapy remains an emerging and evolving field. Accordingly, we expect Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) related topics, including product specification, will be a focus of IND reviews, which may delay the clearance of INDs or IND amendments. For instance, if we introduce changes to the manufacturing of our product candidates, regulatory authorities may require additional studies or clinical data to support the changes, which could delay our clinical trial timelines. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, IND amendment or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. In addition, we have an open IND for ALLO-647, which is being used as part of lymphodepletion in certain of our clinical trials. Any regulatory issues related to ALLO-647 or to the development of ALLO-647, if it is used as part of a lymphodepletion regimen in a clinical study, could delay such study and delay the development of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates and significantly affect our business. We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if our trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include: • inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of clinical studies; • delays in sufficiently developing, characterizing, controlling or optimizing a manufacturing process suitable for clinical trials, including the validation and deployment of release assays; • difficulty sourcing healthy donor material of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity to meet our development needs; • delays in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, or implementing suitable assays for screening patients for eligibility for trials with respect to certain product candidates; • the number of patients who consent to be screened for the ALPHA3 trial may be lower than we expect given the current well-established medical practice of frontline therapy for LBCL and the history of slow patient recruitment in other frontline LBCL trials • the screen failure rate for clinical trials of our product candidates may be higher than we anticipate, requiring us to screen larger numbers of patients than originally planned. For example, the number of patients who have MRD at the end of front-line treatment in ALPHA3 may be lower than we expect, requiring more patients to be screened; • delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies on study design; • delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical study sites; • delays in obtaining required IRB approval or approval of other ancillary regulatory committees at each clinical study site; 46 Table of Contents • imposition of a temporary or permanent clinical hold by regulatory agencies for a number of reasons, including after review of an IND application or amendment, or equivalent application or amendment; as a result of a new safety finding that presents uncertain or unreasonable risk to clinical trial participants; a negative finding from an inspection of our or our collaborator’s clinical study operations or our study sites; developments on trials conducted by competitors for related technology that raises FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority concerns about risk to patients of the technology broadly; or if the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities find that the investigational protocol or plan is clearly deficient to meet its stated objectives; • delays in recruiting suitable patients to participate in our clinical studies; • difficulty collaborating with patient groups and investigators; • failure by our CROs, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical study requirements; • failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices (GCP) requirements or equivalent regulatory guidelines in other countries; • delays or failures in the transfer of manufacturing processes to any CDMO or our own manufacturing facility or any other development or commercialization partner for the manufacture of product candidates; • delays in having patients complete participation in a study or return for post-treatment follow-up; • patients dropping out of a study; • occurrence of adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits; • changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols; • changes in the standard of care on which a clinical development plan was based, which may require new or additional trials; • the cost of clinical studies of our product candidates being greater than we anticipate; • clinical studies of our product candidates producing negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or regulators requiring us, to conduct additional clinical studies or abandon product development programs; • delays or failure to secure supply agreements with suitable raw material suppliers, or any failures by suppliers to meet our quantity or quality requirements for necessary raw materials; • shortage, interruption, or failure to secure commercially available and/or investigational drug products that are required to conduct clinical trials with our allogeneic CAR T product candidates; and • delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating, or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of our product candidates for use in clinical studies or the inability to do any of the foregoing. A pandemic or epidemic may also increase the risk of certain of the events described above and delay our development timelines. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we will be required to meet certain regulatory conditions, such as establishing comparability with the product candidates manufactured prior to such changes, and our inability to meet such conditions would result in investment of additional resources, a delay in our manufacturing of such product candidate and an extension of our clinical trial timelines. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. Our clinical trials may also be delayed because of the availability of drugs required to be used under our protocols. For example, in some of our clinical trials, the study participants receive commercially available drugs for lymphodepletion before our allogeneic CAR T product candidates are administered, and receive other drugs to prevent infections and manage the treatment emergent adverse events. Shortage or lack of availability of these commercially available drugs that are necessary to conduct our clinical trials may cause delays in our clinical trials. Monitoring and managing toxicities in patients receiving our product candidates is challenging, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize. For our clinical trials of our product candidates, we contract or will contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged 47 Table of Contents toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, suspending, varying, or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using our product candidates, if approved, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of our product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment. Challenges associated with the use of these medicines may increase with new physicians and centers administering our product candidates. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. For example, as we progress the ALPHA3, TRAVERSE and RESOLUTION trials, we may face enrollment challenges, including an unwillingness of sites or patients to participate, the exclusion of patients with certain disease characteristics or the ineligibility of patients that have received prior autologous CAR T therapies, which continue to gain adoption. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients. Because we anticipate a minority of the 1L patients we will test for MRD as part of screening for the ALPHA3 trial will be MRD positive, we will likely experience a very high screen failure rate, which will require screening a large number of patients to complete enrollment in the study. Because of the anticipated high screen failure rate, certain clinical trial sites may decline to participate in ALPHA3 or completion of enrollment may be significantly delayed. Future epidemics or pandemics may result in reduced enrollment and challenges to related clinical trial activities. The enrollment of patients may be more difficult, such as due to the perceptions of the safety of our product candidates, and will depend on many factors, including: • the patient eligibility criteria defined in the protocol; • the prevalence of any biomarker required for enrollment, such as MRD or CD70 expression; • the performance of the diagnostic tests used to determine eligibility for enrollment (e.g., MRD or CD70); • the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints; • the proximity of patients to study sites; • the design of the trial; • our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; • our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; • the competition from approved products in the same or other lines of therapy and and/or disease indications and from product candidates in other clinical trials; and • the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before the infusion of our product candidates or trial completion. Since we only need to conduct a limited number of manufacturing runs to generate clinical supply, the diversity of our supply is limited during clinical trials. As a result, some patients may have antibodies to certain donor specific antigens at titers that could negatively impact the activity of our product candidates and which would render the patients ineligible for treatment. Furthermore, cellular mechanisms of allogeneic tissue rejection may limit the efficacy of our products. In addition, we have introduced an in vitro companion diagnostic (IVD) assay in the TRAVERSE trial to screen for patients with CD70+ tumors and are utilizing an MRD assay in the ALPHA3 trial to screen for patients who are MRD positive, both of which are restricting the number of patients eligible for the trials. Development and research use of an experimental diagnostic assay or test, such as that we are using to determine CD70 expression on tumor tissue of potential participants in the TRAVERSE trial or to identify MRD positive patients in the ALPHA3 trial, may influence results of the study in expected or unexpected ways. For example, emerging safety and efficacy outcomes could lead us to impose, tighten or expand “cutoff” values of CD70 expression to determine enrollment eligibility for TRAVERSE. Assay performance or necessary changes we or our partners make to the assay(s) during development may reduce the pace of enrollment or may lead to alterations in the expected benefit risk profile as compared to results collected prior to the change. The diagnostic assay itself may not perform as expected due to identifiable or obscure factors. It is also possible that we may not be aware of such underperformance of the assay which could lead to incorrect conclusions. This could, in turn, impact enrollment and interpretation of the clinical trial results. Our clinical trials will also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. For example, our collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics is nonexclusive. As a result, there is a risk that 48 Table of Contents Foresight Diagnostics might work with our competitors to enable a competing clinical trial involving the same MRD positive patient population that we plan to enroll in ALPHA3, which would reduce the number of patients who are available to participate in ALPHA3, and potentially delay completion of ALPHA3. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites are also being used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in that clinical trial site. As our clinical trials require conditioning patients with chemotherapy, including agents such as cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, and physicians use other drugs prophylactically or to manage adverse events, our ability to enroll may be impacted by the shortage of such agents or drugs. For instance, the FDA has reported a shortage of fludarabine and any failure or delays by us or by our clinical trial sites to obtain sufficient quantities of fludarabine may delay our ability to enroll and treat patients in our clinical trials. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for treating cancer and autoimmune diseases, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, hematopoietic cell transplantation as well as autologous CAR T cell therapies for treating cancer or hydroxychloroquine, NSAIDs, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, or other biologics for treating autoimmune diseases, rather than enroll patients in our clinical trial, including if our product candidates have or are perceived to have additional safety or efficacy risks or if using our product candidates may affect insurance coverage of conventional therapies. For instance, the development of autologous CAR T cell therapies continues to rapidly advance, including into earlier lines of treatment of LBCL and treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma, as described under the section entitled "Business—Competition" included in this Annual Report. We also may experience risks associated with a new class of therapies, bispecific antibodies, which have been approved for multiple myeloma and LBCL. The compelling results and related approvals may impact our ability to enroll patients in our clinical trials. Moreover, patients eligible for allogeneic CAR T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer and inability to wait for autologous CAR T cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy or may experience a reduction in efficacy as compared to patients who are well enough and whose disease is sufficiently slow growing as to be eligible for autologous CAR T cell therapy. Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates. The market opportunities for certain of our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small. The FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients with R/R metastatic disease. We may initially seek approval of certain of our product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek further approval in earlier lines of treatment, and for cema-cel we expect to initially seek approval in the first line consolidation setting. There is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials, including potentially comparative trials against the then-current standard of care, which in some cases may include comparative trials against approved therapies. We may also target a similar patient population as autologous CAR T product candidates, including approved autologous CAR T products. Our therapies may not be as safe and effective as autologous CAR T therapies and may only be approved for patients who are ineligible for autologous CAR T therapy. Our projections of both the number of patients who have the cancers or autoimmune diseases we are targeting, as well as the subset of patients with these cancers or autoimmune diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies or therapies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers and autoimmune diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited, such as due to the eligibility criteria of our trials (e.g., MRD+ rates lower than expected), or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, all of which may negatively impact the potential market opportunity for our other product candidates, if approved. We may fail to successfully manufacture our product candidates, operate our own manufacturing facility, or obtain regulatory approval to utilize or commercialize from our manufacturing facility or at a CDMO, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates. 49 Table of Contents We may not be able to achieve clinical or commercial manufacturing of our products on our own or at a CDMO, including the inability to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in managing the allogeneic T cell engineering process, and our allogeneic processes may be more difficult or more expensive than the approaches taken by our competitors. Until we complete our clinical trials, we cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by us or the technologies that we incorporate for manufacturing will result in consistent T cell production that will be safe and effective. We operate CF1, a manufacturing facility located in Newark, California, that is designed to support our clinical trials and potential commercial production and worldwide distribution of allogeneic CAR T cell products for blood cancers, solid tumors and autoimmune diseases. Introducing any product manufactured at our manufacturing facility into an ongoing clinical trial would be subject to FDA review, and may result in increased costs and delays in conducting such trial, submitting a biologics license application (BLA) and/or gaining FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. Similar conditions may apply if we make process changes to our product candidates, as we plan to do for our BCMA program. In addition, any process or raw material change could introduce unacceptable product variability and impact our ability to manufacture on a consistent and reproducible basis. Ultimately, any failure or delays in manufacturing and qualification of our product candidates at our CDMO or at our own manufacturing facility could delay our clinical trials. We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the commercial manufacturing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. The commercial dose and treatment regimen may affect our ability to scale and will affect our cost per dose. For instance, because our anti-BCMA product candidates may require a higher dose than cema-cel, it is possible that it may be more difficult to scale production of our anti-BCMA product candidates to meet demand. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. Our manufacturing facility will also require FDA approval, and possibly similar approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can be used for commercial production, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, EMA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP), and other government regulations. The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. Other problems can include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. The application of new regulatory guidelines or parameters, such as those related to release testing, may also adversely affect our ability to manufacture our product candidates. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such supply may have to be discarded and our manufacturing facility may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future. We or any of our vendors may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our raw materials and product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in the inability to manufacture product, the loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. We may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disruptions, such as due to a future pandemic, epidemic or disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized. As a company, we have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be able to generate product revenue. As a company, we have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products; however, there can be no assurance that we will 50 Table of Contents be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces or be on favorable terms. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval in the United States or in other markets. A variety of risks associated with conducting research and clinical trials abroad and marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business. We plan to globally develop our product candidates. Accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including: • differing regulatory requirements in foreign countries; • unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers, price and exchange controls and other regulatory requirements, including recently imposed tariffs which may impact certain of our key raw materials that we import, and which could impact our cost of goods for our product candidates; • differing standards and privacy requirements for the conduct of clinical trials; • geographic variations in genetics, comorbidities, environmental factors, treatment patterns, and healthcare practices may impact the safety profile or efficacy of our product candidates; • increased difficulties in managing the logistics and transportation of storing and shipping product candidates produced in the United States, shipping the product candidate to the patient abroad, and shipping patient samples to the United States for screening tests; • import and export requirements and restrictions; • economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; • compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; • foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes; • foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; • difficulties staffing and managing foreign operations; • workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States; • differing payor reimbursement regimes, governmental payors or patient self-pay systems, and price controls; • potential liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 or comparable foreign regulations; • challenges enforcing our contractual and intellectual property rights, especially in those foreign countries that do not respect and protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the United States; • production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; • challenges with obtaining any local supply of drugs or agents used with our product candidates, which are required by certain local clinical trial sites before conducting any study; and • business interruptions resulting from future health epidemics or pandemics, or natural or man-made disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, fires or other medical epidemics, or geo-political actions, including war and terrorism. These and other risks associated with our collaborations with Servier and Cellectis, each based in France, our collaboration with Notch, based in Canada, and our joint venture for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore with HBP, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations. We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively. The biopharmaceutical industry, and the immuno-oncology industry specifically, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve 51 Table of Contents similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products. Specifically, engineered T cells face significant competition from multiple companies. Success of other therapies could impact our regulatory strategy and delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section entitled “Business—Competition” included in this Annual Report. We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific, medical and other personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, including our Executive Chair, our President and Chief Executive Officer, our Executive Vice President, Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer, our Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and our General Counsel. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business. We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in the San Francisco Bay area. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. Attrition may lead to higher costs for hiring and retention, diversion of management time to address retention matters and disrupt the business. To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock unit (RSU) awards that vest over time or upon the achievement of certain key strategic goals. The value to employees of stock options and RSU awards that vest over time or upon achieving goals have been significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. We completed an option exchange program in July 2022 to alleviate the significant number of employee options that were underwater at that time. Our stock price has significantly declined since the option exchange program and a significant number of our employee options remain underwater and may not provide the intended incentive for employees to remain at our company. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel. The size of our workforce has fluctuated and we will need to manage the size of our organization as we continue to advance our product candidates. As our development, manufacturing and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we have grown our employee base and allocated resources to multiple new functions, but in January 2024 we implemented a 22% reduction in force, and we 52 Table of Contents will need to continue to manage the size of our organization to ensure that we can successfully execute our strategic plans. As our product candidates advance toward commercialization, we expect to hire employees in areas that include sales and marketing. Future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including: • identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees; • managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical and FDA review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and • improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. We may also be subject to penalties or other liabilities if we mis-classify employees as consultants. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring and retaining employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development, manufacturing and commercialization goals. Conversely, if we expand ahead of our business progress, we may take on unnecessary costs. We may form or seek additional strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements. We may form or seek additional strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations. If we license products or new technologies or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our agreements with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, and Foresight Diagnostics require significant research and development that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. We may not realize the benefits of acquired assets or other strategic transactions. We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of CAR T cell assets from Pfizer, licenses with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, our strategic collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics, and our joint venture with HBP and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including: 53 Table of Contents • technical difficulties associated with advancing partnered programs; • unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies or joint ventures; • difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business; • retention of key employees; • managerial challenges associated with the oversight of partnered programs; • disagreements regarding each party’s contractual rights and obligations under our partnership agreements; • costs and uncertainties related to managing disputes with any strategic partners; • increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses; • inability of our strategic partners to access suitable capital; • disruption in or termination of our relationships with collaborators or suppliers as a result of such a transaction; and • possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses or joint ventures. If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction. Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries. For instance, our joint venture with HBP has faced challenges relating to the regulatory and competitive environment in China for allogeneic CAR T products, as well as challenges within the capital markets for financing allogeneic CAR T development. Our joint venture may face manufacturing difficulties, such as from changes in raw materials or processes due to local regulations, or delivering our licensed product candidates in China, Taiwan, South Korea or Singapore, which could prevent any development or commercialization of our licensed product candidates in the region. The joint venture will also require significant operational and financial support in the future by us or third parties, and any future financing of the joint venture would increase our expenses or dilute our ownership in the joint venture. We may also face unknown liabilities due to supporting our joint venture, such as due to any misuse of materials supplied to our joint venture. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. If our security measures, or those of our CROs, CDMOs, collaborators, contractors, consultants or other third parties with whom we work, are or were compromised or the security, confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information technology, software, services, networks, communications or data is compromised, limited or fails, we could experience a material adverse impact. In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work collect, process, receive, store, use, generate, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) proprietary, confidential and sensitive information, including personal data (including health information), intellectual property, trade secrets, information we collect about patients in connection with clinical trials, and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or other parties (collectively, sensitive information). Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work. Such threats are prevalent and are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, and the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce and distribute our product candidates. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, adware, ransomware, supply chain attacks, personnel misconduct or error, attacks 54 Table of Contents enhanced or facilitated by AI, and other similar threats. Our information technology systems and data, and those of the third parties with whom we work, may also be subject to failure or disruption from software bugs, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, telecommunications failures, natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, and floods, and other similar issues. In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions, delays, or outages in our operations, disruptions to our clinical trials, loss of data (including data related to clinical trials), significant expense to restore data or systems, reputational loss and the diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. In addition, our reliance on third parties could introduce new cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, including supply-chain attacks, and other threats to our business operations. Such supply chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach to our information technology systems or those of the third parties with whom we work. Additionally, future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program. We work with certain third parties, such as CROs and CDMOs, to operate critical business systems and process our proprietary, confidential and sensitive information. We also share or receive sensitive information with our CROs, CDMOs, or other third parties. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties with whom we work experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if the third parties with whom we work fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. Although we have implemented security measures designed to protect against, mitigate, and remediate security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. We take steps designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work). We have not and may not in the future, however, detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities in our information technology systems, including on a timely basis, because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred. Unremediated high risk or critical vulnerabilities pose material risks to our business that may be exploited and could result in a security incident. Further, we have experienced and may in the future experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities. We also face heightened physical and information technology risks due to our sharing office space with other tenants at certain of our sites. Any failure to prevent or mitigate security incidents or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under state, federal, and international law and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to conduct our clinical trials and potentially disrupt our business. In addition, as many of our employees work from home at least part of the time and utilize network connections outside our premises, including while at home, or in transit, this poses increased risks to our information technology systems and data. Certain of the previously identified or similar threats have in the past, and any of the identified or similar threats may in the future, cause a security incident or other interruption that could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to our sensitive information. For example, we have been the target of unsuccessful phishing attempts in the past, and expect such attempts will continue in the future. In addition, from time to time, our vendors inform us of security incidents. For example, in November 2024, one of our vendors notified us that they had detected suspicious activity on their network that compromised several email accounts the vendor used to communicate with us. We took appropriate remedial measures, and based on our investigation, we concluded that the incident did not compromise our systems. To date, we have not determined that such incidents as reported to us were material. However, we may not have all information related to such incidents and future incidents could have an adverse impact on our business. A security incident or other interruption could disrupt our ability (and that of third parties with whom we work) to manufacture or deliver our product candidates. We may expend significant resources (including financial), or modify our business activities and operations, including our clinical trial activities, in an effort to protect against security incidents or to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain and remediate a security incident. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific 55 Table of Contents security measures or use industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information. Applicable data protection laws, privacy policies, data protection obligations and public company disclosure obligations may require us, or we may voluntarily choose, to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, regulators and investors, of certain security incidents, or to implement other requirements, such as providing credit monitoring. Such disclosures and compliance with such requirements are costly, and the disclosures or the failure to comply with such applicable requirements could lead to adverse consequences. A security incident, whether perceived or actual, experienced by us or a third party with whom we work, may cause us to experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data); litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration; indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Whether a cybersecurity incident is reportable to our investors may not be straightforward, may take considerable time to determine, and may be subject to change as the investigation of the incident progresses, including changes that may significantly alter any initial disclosure that we provide. Moreover, experiencing a material cybersecurity incident and any mandatory disclosures could lead to negative publicity, loss of investor or partner confidence in the effectiveness of our cybersecurity measures, diversion of management’s attention, governmental investigations, lawsuits, and the expenditure of significant capital and other resources. Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or adequately mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, or that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims. In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. Additionally, sensitive information could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies by our employees, personnel, or vendors. Changes in funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies including comparable foreign regulatory authorities could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, and business disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Average review times at the agency and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. In addition, there have recently been terminations of large numbers of federal employees at various federal agencies. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it and/or employee terminations or resignations could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other federal agencies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns and/or employee terminations or resignations or could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations, or to timely obtain patent protection in the U.S. to protect our technology. 56 Table of Contents Our relationships with customers, physicians, and third-party payors are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal, state, local and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors violate these laws, we could face substantial penalties. These laws may impact, among other things, our clinical research program, as well as our proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services is subject to extensive laws and regulations designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive and other business arrangements. We may also be subject to federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of identifiable patient information, price reporting, false claims and provider transparency. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, rules, and industry standards, as well as policies, contracts and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our (or the third parties with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to enforcement or litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands, fines or penalties, a disruption of clinical trials or commercialization of products, reputational harm, or other adverse business effects. In the ordinary course of business, we process sensitive information. Accordingly, we are, and may in the future become, subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various federal, state, local and foreign data privacy and security laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards as well as external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts and other obligations that apply to data privacy and security and our processing of personal data and the processing of personal data on our behalf. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), and their respective implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH, through its implementing regulations, makes certain of HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information for or on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA as well as their covered subcontractors. In the past few years, numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires covered companies to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. The CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, but these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work. Such laws, if they become applicable to us in the future, may significantly impact our business activities, exemplifying the vulnerability of our business to evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. Similar laws are being considered in other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards govern privacy, data protection, information security and cross-border personal data transfers. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR), the United Kingdom’s GDPR (UK GDPR) (collectively, GDPR), and Australia’s Privacy Act, China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), and Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic 57 Table of Contents Documents Act (PIPEDA) (and various related provincial laws) and Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to €20,000,000 under the EU GDPR / 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR, or up to 4% annual total revenue, in each case, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK) have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Some jurisdictions have adopted, and others may in the future adopt, similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA and UK’s standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers for relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we may face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations (such as by limiting our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and elsewhere), the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines, and injunctions against processing personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have also ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Regulators in the United States such as the Department of Justice are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and have proposed and may enact certain data localization requirements, for example, the executive order from the previous federal administration Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern. In addition, privacy advocates and industry groups have proposed, and may in the future propose, standards with which we are legally or contractually bound to comply. We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. We publish privacy notices and other statements regarding data privacy and security. Regulators in the United States are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if any of our privacy notices or related materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences. Furthermore, our employees and personnel may use generative artificial intelligence technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in such technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws regulating generative AI. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and lawsuits. Obligations related to data privacy and security (including consumers’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. As a result, preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. Although we endeavor to comply with our applicable privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) to do so. Moreover, despite our efforts, we may not be successful in achieving compliance if our employees, third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable obligations related to data privacy and security, we could face significant consequences including, but not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits and inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-related claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional 58 Table of Contents reporting requirements and/or oversight; temporary or permanent bans or restrictions on all or some processing of personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations. If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • decreased demand for our product candidates; • injury to our reputation; • withdrawal of clinical trial participants; • initiation of investigations by regulators; • costs to defend the related litigation; • a diversion of management’s time and our resources; • substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients; • product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions; • loss of revenue; • exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources; • the inability to commercialize any product candidate; and • a decline in our share price. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. While we have obtained and expect to obtain clinical trial insurance for our clinical trials, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates Our engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates represent a novel approach to cancer treatment and treatment of autoimmune diseases, which creates significant challenges for us. We are developing a pipeline of allogeneic T cell product candidates that are engineered from healthy donor T cells to express CARs and are intended for use in any eligible patient with certain cancers or autoimmune diseases. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including: • manufacturing our product candidates to our or regulatory specifications and in a timely manner to support our clinical trials, and, if approved, commercialization; • sourcing clinical and, if approved, commercial supplies for the raw materials used to manufacture our product candidates; 59 Table of Contents • understanding and addressing variability in the quality of a donor’s T cells, which could ultimately affect our ability to produce product in a reliable and consistent manner and treat certain patients; • educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our product candidates, if approved, such as the potential adverse side effects related to CRS, neurotoxicity, GvHD, IEC-HS, prolonged cytopenia, aplastic anemia and neutropenic sepsis; • using medicines to preempt or manage adverse side effects of our product candidates and such medicines may be difficult to source or costly or may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have other safety risks or a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment; • conditioning patients with chemotherapy and ALLO-647 or other lymphodepletion agents in advance of administering our product candidates, which may be difficult to source, costly or increase the risk of infections and other adverse side effects; • obtaining regulatory approval, as the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer or autoimmune diseases; and • establishing sales and marketing capabilities upon obtaining any regulatory approval to gain market acceptance of a novel therapy. Gene-editing is a relatively new technology, and if we are unable to use this technology in our intended product candidates, our revenue opportunities will be materially limited. Cellectis’ TALEN technology, which we use in our oncology programs, and Arbor’s CRISPR technology, which we use in our AID program, both involve relatively new approaches to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms, and we have very little experience with Arbor’s CRISPR technology. Cellectis and Arbor have not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and they may not agree to or have difficulty creating nucleases for other gene sequences that we may seek to target, which could limit the usefulness of this technology. Cellectis and Arbor are our sole sources for this technology, including for certain tools such as nucleases and vectors. If Cellectis or Arbor were to be unwilling or unable to supply these tools, our ability to develop gene-edited product candidates could be materially and adversely impacted, leading to delays in our development programs and potential failure to commercialize certain product candidates. This technology may also not be shown to be effective in clinical studies that Cellectis, we or other licensees of Cellectis technology or Arbor’s CRISPR technology may conduct, or may be associated with safety issues that may negatively affect our development programs. For instance, gene-editing may create unintended changes to the DNA such as a non-target site gene-editing, a large deletion, or a DNA translocation, any of which could lead to oncogenesis. In our ALPHA2 trial, we observed a chromosomal abnormality, and the FDA placed our clinical trials on hold following this observation. While our investigation concluded that gene editing was not responsible for the chromosomal abnormality and the hold was resolved, we may discover future abnormalities caused by gene editing or other factors that would impact our development plans. The gene editing of our product candidates may also not be successful in limiting the risk of GvHD or premature rejection by the patient. In addition, the gene-editing industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, any failures of such technology could adversely impact our program. We also may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost, and which would delay our development programs. In addition, our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. We are heavily reliant on our partners, Cellectis and Servier, for access to TALEN gene editing technology for the manufacturing and development of our oncology product candidates. A critical aspect to manufacturing allogeneic T cell product candidates involves gene editing the healthy donor T cells in an effort to avoid GvHD and to limit the patient’s immune system from attacking the allogeneic T cells. GvHD results when allogeneic T cells start recognizing the patient’s normal tissue as foreign. For our oncology product candidates, we use Cellectis’ TALEN gene-editing technology to inactivate a gene coding for TCRα, a key component of the natural antigen receptor of T cells, to cause the engineered T cells to be incapable of recognizing foreign antigens. Accordingly, when injected 60 Table of Contents into a patient, the intent is for the engineered T cell not to recognize the tissue of the patient as foreign and thus avoid attacking the patient’s tissue. In addition, we use TALEN gene editing in our oncology product candidates to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor T cells, which codes for the target of an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody. Anti-CD52 monoclonal antibodies deplete CD52 expressing T cells in patients while sparing therapeutic allogeneic T cells lacking CD52. By administering an anti-CD52 antibody prior to infusing our oncology product candidates, we believe we have the potential to reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system from rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which the engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy the cancer cells. However, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects. We rely on an agreement with Cellectis for exclusive rights to use TALEN technology for 15 select cancer targets, including BCMA, FLT3, CD70, DLL3, Claudin 18.2 and other targets included in our pipeline. We also rely on Cellectis, through our agreement with Servier, for exclusive rights to UCART19, ALLO-501 and cema-cel. Any other gene-editing technology used to research and develop product candidates directed at targets not covered by our existing agreements with Cellectis and Servier will require significant investment and time for advancement. In addition, the Cellectis gene-editing technology may fail to produce viable product candidates. Moreover, both Servier and Cellectis may terminate our respective agreements in the event of a material breach of the agreements, or upon certain insolvency events. Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. If our agreements were terminated, we would be required to seek other gene editing technology or abandon our cema-cel and ALLO-316 programs, both of which could materially impact our business and financial position. Further, alternative gene editing technology may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all, and advancing other gene editing technology would require significant resources. We are heavily reliant on our partner, Foresight Diagnostics, for access to their CLARITY™ MRD test for identifying eligible patients for our ALPHA3 trial. Our ALPHA3 trial design requires the use of Foresight Diagnostics’ CLARITY™ MRD test for patient selection. Foresight Diagnostics is a private company founded in 2020. Although Foresight Diagnostics has successfully executed its role in our ALPHA3 trial, it has limited resources and limited experience with its MRD assay and in executing clinical trials or supporting a commercial product. In the future, Foresight Diagnostics may not be able to successfully and timely conduct the ALPHA3 MRD tests, obtain regulatory approval of CLARITY or successfully support commercialization of cema-cel, if approved. If we need to transition to an alternative MRD test in the future, it could result in additional costs, delays, and diversion of resources, any of which would negatively impact our cema-cel development program. Further, we may be unable to identify an alternative approved effective MRD test, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. Our reliance on specific vendors named in our INDs subject us to risks if these vendors are unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations or if we need to change vendors, which could delay or prevent the development of our product candidates and commercialization, if approved. Our investigational new drug (IND) applications name specific third-party vendors to supply certain raw materials, components, technology, and services that are essential to manufacturing our product candidates. We do not have the ability to rapidly secure alternative sources for these materials or services. In addition, because these vendors are specified in our INDs, any change to a new vendor would require additional regulatory submissions and approvals, which could significantly delay or complicate our product development efforts. If any of these vendors becomes unable or unwilling to supply the products or services we require on acceptable terms, in sufficient quantities, or in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, we may experience: • Delays in our preclinical studies or clinical trials due to the need to qualify and obtain regulatory approval for an alternate supplier; • Higher costs associated with the need to qualify and validate a new manufacturing facility and supply chain; • Difficulty ensuring quality and compliance with cGMP or other regulatory standards at a new vendor site, potentially leading to regulatory enforcement actions against us or significant delays in regulatory approvals or commercialization; and • Disruption to our development timeline and commercialization efforts, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. Moreover, our reliance on these third parties reduces our control over manufacturing and quality assurance processes. Any performance failure or compliance breach by our named vendors—such as failing to meet regulatory standards or 61 Table of Contents encountering financial or operational difficulties—could adversely affect the ongoing development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. If we are forced to seek alternative vendors, we may be required to conduct bridging studies or other additional testing to demonstrate comparability of a product candidate when manufactured by a different supplier. Such a process can be time-consuming, expensive, and could delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval or achieve market acceptance of our product candidates. If any of these events occur, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially harmed. Servier’s discontinuation of its involvement in the development of CD19 Products and Servier's disputes with Cellectis, or future disputes with us, may have adverse consequences. On September 15, 2022, Servier sent a notice of discontinuation (Discontinuation) of its involvement in the development of CD19, including the CD19 Products pursuant to the Original Servier Agreement. Under the Servier Agreement, Servier sublicenses to us certain rights it has licensed from Cellectis relating to Cellectis’ TALEN gene editing technology pursuant to the Servier-Cellectis Agreement. In May 2024 we entered into the Servier Amendment which made various amendments to the Original Servier Agreement, and expanded our licensed territory thereunder to include the European Union and the United Kingdom, and also granted us an option, under certain circumstances, to expand the territory further to include China (including Hong Kong) and Japan. Although we believe that we and Servier are both in full compliance of our respective obligations under the Servier Agreement, there can be no assurance that we will not have future disputes with Servier regarding our respective rights and obligations under our agreements and any future dispute could jeopardize our CD19 Products license, the loss of which would have a significant adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects. In April 2024 Cellectis filed a Form 20-F with the SEC, stating that Cellectis does not believe that: (1) the Servier-Cellectis Agreement permits Servier to grant a world-wide sub-license to us; and (2) Servier has not complied with its performance obligations under the Servier-Cellectis Agreement, which Cellectis believes may involve material breaches thereof. Cellectis has initiated an arbitration proceeding against Servier through the Centre de Médiation et d'Arbitrage de Paris, wherein Cellectis is seeking a decision terminating the Servier-Cellectis Agreement, and seeking certain compensation. Cellectis has asserted that a favorable determination by the arbitral tribunal, if achieved, would return development and commercialization rights for the licensed products back to Cellectis. Although Servier has advised us that they believe Cellectis’ claims are without merit, there is a risk that Cellectis may prevail in the arbitration and terminate the Servier-Cellectis Agreement. Additionally, although we believe the Servier-Cellectis Agreement grants Servier the right to grant sublicenses without further consent from Cellectis, there is a risk that Cellectis may challenge the expansion of our territory under the Servier Agreement to regions outside the US. The Servier Agreement provides us with certain rights to obtain a direct license with Cellectis in the event the Servier-Cellectis Agreement is terminated, however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such a direct license. Additionally, although the Servier-Cellectis Agreement grants Servier the right to grant sublicenses without further consent from Cellectis, there is a risk that Cellectis could seek to challenge the expansion of our rights under the Servier Agreement to include the European Union and the United Kingdom. The termination of the Servier-Cellectis Agreement, our failure to obtain a direct license with Cellectis after such termination, or a successful challenge to the territorial expansion of our rights under the Servier Agreement would have a significant adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects. Our oncology development strategy relies on incorporating an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody as part of the lymphodepletion preconditioning regimen prior to infusing allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates. Certain of our oncology product candidates utilize an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody as part of a lymphodepletion regimen to be infused prior to infusing our product candidates. The anti-CD52 antibody may reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which such engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy cancer cells. However, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects. For instance, our lymphodepletion regimen, including using an anti-CD52 antibody, will cause immune suppression that can be of unpredictable depth and duration and that may be associated with an increased risk of infection, such as to common viral or bacterial or opportunistic pathogens, that may be unable to be cleared and ultimately lead to other serious adverse events or death. In the prior CALM and PALL trials, a commercially available monoclonal antibody, alemtuzumab, that binds CD52 was used. Alemtuzumab is known to have risk of causing certain adverse events. In 2020, within the context of a procedure based on Article 20 of Regulation 726/2204 (EMA Regulation), the EMA completed a pharmacovigilance review of alemtuzumab in the context of the treatment of multiple sclerosis following reports of immune-mediated conditions and problems affecting the heart and blood vessels, including fatal cases. The EMA recommended that alemtuzumab should not be used in patients with certain heart, circulation or bleeding disorders or in patients who have autoimmune disorders other than 62 Table of Contents multiple sclerosis. The EMA also recommended that alemtuzumab only be given in a hospital with ready access to intensive care facilities and specialists who can manage serious adverse reactions. The use of our anti-CD52 antibody may result in the same or similar adverse events as alemtuzumab, and we have chosen to administer our product candidates at trial centers experienced at managing patients with advanced malignancies as well as toxicities associated with immunomodulatory therapies, which significantly limits the sites that are eligible to participate in our clinical trials. If the EMA or other regulatory agencies further limit the use of alemtuzumab or anti-CD52 antibodies, our clinical program would be adversely affected. To secure our own readily available source of anti-CD52 antibody, we are developing our own monoclonal anti-CD52 antibody, ALLO-647, which we use in certain of our clinical trials. ALLO-647 may cause serious adverse events that alemtuzumab may cause, including fatal adverse events, infusion related reactions, immune thrombocytopenia, glomerular nephropathies, thyroid disorders, autoimmune cytopenias, autoimmune hepatitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acquired hemophilia, infections, stroke, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In addition, we are exploring various dosing strategies for lymphodepletion in our clinical trials, such as including varying doses of the chemotherapy agents and/or ALLO-647 or eliminating one or more of the agents, which may alter the risk of serious adverse events or have other undesirable outcomes such as a reduction of the efficacy of treatment. Additionally, our experimental lymphodepletion regimens may show different safety profiles when paired with different allogeneic CAR T product candidates such that regimens deemed safe with one CAR T product candidate may be determined to be associated with unacceptable toxicity when combined with another CAR T candidate or with the same candidate in a different patient population. If observed, these differences may require additional clinical exploration and may cause delays in the execution or termination of development campaigns. See the section entitled "Business—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy" included in this Annual Report for information on safety events. If we are unable to successfully develop and manufacture ALLO-647 in the timeframe we anticipate, or at all, such as if regulatory authorities do not agree with our selected dose or approve of the use of ALLO-647 in combination with our allogeneic T cell product candidates, our clinical trial timelines and ability to commercialize certain of our oncology product candidates would be significantly delayed. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates. We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us. We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws. Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are not and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out 63 Table of Contents their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. We rely on third parties to manufacture and store our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved. While we utilize CF1 for clinical manufacturing of our CAR T product candidates, we will continue to use CDMOs to manufacture ALLO-647 and several core reagents, and for distribution logistics. There can be no assurance that we will not experience supply or manufacturing issues related to our product candidates or core reagents in the future. We do not have long-term agreements in place with CDMOs for the manufacture of our cell therapies or of ALLO-647. If we are unable to contract with CDMOs on acceptable terms or at all, our clinical development program would be delayed and our business would be significantly harmed. For example, in December 2024 Novo Holdings completed its acquisition of Catalent, Inc., and shortly thereafter Novo Nordisk acquired three Catalent fill-finish sites and related assets from Novo Holdings. ALLO-647 is manufactured at one of these sites, and we have been advised by Novo Nordisk that we will need to transfer such manufacturing to a different site. Although we believe that we currently have sufficient ALLO-647 inventory for our near-term requirements, the transfer to a new manufacturing site will be time consuming, costly, and subject to uncertainty. In addition, the transfer will require regulatory approval. We may be unable to complete the manufacturing site transfer in a timely manner, if at all, which could significantly delay our clinical development timelines. If we are unable to establish an alternative manufacturing site or unable to do so in a timely manner, if at all, it could significantly delay our clinical development timelines. We have built CF1 and have transitioned the manufacturing of certain product candidates to our manufacturing facility, and we are reliant on CF1 as our sole manufacturing site for certain of our product candidates. Manufacturing product candidates in our own facility requires that we meet certain regulatory conditions, which may delay or extend our clinical trial timelines. If, for any reason, we are unable to continue manufacturing our product candidates at CF1, there is a risk that we may need to re-engage our CDMO to manufacture material, which would be costly and there is a risk that the CDMO may be unavailable or may fail in manufacturing, such as due to the CDMO having to retrain its personnel, or train new personnel, to manufacture our material. Any disruptions to CF1's operations, whether due to regulatory non-compliance, supply chain constraints, equipment failures, natural disasters, or other unforeseen circumstances, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to manufacture our products and meet clinical or commercial demand. If CF1 becomes unavailable for any reason, our ability to continue product development and commercialization could be significantly impaired, leading to delays, increased costs, and potential loss of revenue. We have not yet caused our product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to achieve manufacturing and processing and may be unable to create an inventory of mass-produced, off-the-shelf product to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. Our clinical supply is also limited to small quantities and any latent defects discovered in our supply could significantly delay our development timelines. In addition, our actual and potential future reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks: • We may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may have questions regarding any replacement contractor. This may require new testing and regulatory interactions. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our products after receipt of FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities questions, if any. 64 Table of Contents • Our third-party manufacturers might be unable to timely formulate and manufacture our product or core reagents or produce the quantity and quality required to meet our clinical and commercial needs, if any. • Contract manufacturers may not be able to execute our manufacturing procedures appropriately. • Contract manufacturers may be subject to adverse legislative actions. • Manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards. • We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to any improvements made by our third-party manufacturers in the manufacturing process for our products. • Our future contract manufacturers may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to supply our clinical trials or to successfully produce, store and distribute our products or core reagents. • Our third-party manufacturers could breach or terminate their agreement with us. Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Our current and potential future CDMOs may also be required to shut down in response to health epidemics or pandemics, or they may prioritize manufacturing for therapies or vaccines for other diseases. In addition, our CDMOs have certain responsibilities for storage of raw materials and in the past have lost or failed to adequately store our raw materials. We also rely on third parties to store our released product candidates, and any failure to adequately store our product candidates could result in significant delay to our development timelines. Any additional or future damage or loss of raw materials or product candidates could materially impact our ability to manufacture and supply our product candidates. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any, of our product candidates by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm. We rely on T cells from healthy donors to manufacture our product candidates, and if we do not obtain an adequate supply of T cells from qualified donors, development of those product candidates, or commercialization, if approved, may be adversely impacted. Unlike autologous CAR T companies, we are reliant on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Healthy donor T cells vary in type and quality, and this variation makes producing standardized product candidates more difficult and makes the development and commercialization pathway of those product candidates more uncertain. We have developed a screening process designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR T cell product candidates, but the manufacturing runs we have completed and tested in the clinic are limited across our product candidates. As we gain experience, we may find that our screening process fails to identify suitable donor material and we may discover unacceptable variability with the material after production. We may also have to update our specifications for new risks that may emerge, such as to screen for new viruses or chromosomal abnormalities. We have strict specifications for donor material, which include specifications required by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to identify and obtain donor material that satisfy specifications, agree with regulatory authorities on appropriate specifications, or address variability in donor T cells, there may be inconsistencies in the product candidates we produce or we may be unable to initiate or continue clinical trials on the timelines we expect, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects. In addition, vendors face challenges in obtaining donor material. While we have donor material on hand, if our vendors are unable to secure donor material, we may no longer have sufficient donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, including viral vectors that deliver the CAR sequence and electroporation technology, some of which are manufactured by small companies with limited resources and experience to 65 Table of Contents support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. We do not have contracts with many of the suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms, or at all. As a result of logistical challenges and recent inflation, we may experience higher costs or delays in receiving, or fail to secure entirely, key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. Certain raw materials also require third-party testing, and some of the testing service companies may not have capacity or be able to conduct the testing that we request. In addition, many of our suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, including generating data required for a BLA and in non-routine circumstances like an FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also face competition for supplies from other cell therapy companies. Such competition may make it difficult for us to secure raw materials or the testing of such materials on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Some raw materials are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. For example, for certain raw materials we previously had to find an alternative supplier, which required qualifying the new supplier, which required meeting regulatory requirements for such qualification. If we need to transition to an alternative supplier in the future, it could result in additional costs, delays, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. If we or our third-party suppliers use hazardous, non-hazardous, biological or other materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages. Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials, and there is a risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. For instance, we have had and may continue to have environmental notice of violations at our manufacturing facility. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. In addition, we have previously shipped certain materials to Allogene Overland PRC in China and may do so in the future to its successor entity. Any violation by our joint venture in the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal under foreign law may subject us to additional liability. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations. Risks Related to Government Regulation The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory approval processes are lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States or elsewhere until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA or equivalent approvals from other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities. A BLA or equivalent foreign application must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The BLA or equivalent foreign application must also include significant information regarding CMC matters for the product, and any delay 66 Table of Contents or failure in generating such data to meet the evolving CMC regulatory requirements would delay any BLA filing or equivalent foreign application. We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with commercial development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer. We may also request clinical trial initiation or regulatory approval of future CAR-based product candidates by target, regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may have difficulty accepting. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained. We have previously experienced a delay in our clinical trials due to a clinical hold, and may experience future delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to: • obtaining regulatory authorization to begin a trial, if applicable, including regulatory approval of any companion diagnostic, if applicable; • the availability of financial resources to commence and complete the planned trials; • reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites; • developing and implementing processes and procedures with collaborators relating to the collection and transfer of patient samples and the timely performance of a companion diagnostic on such samples; • obtaining approval at each clinical trial site by an independent IRB or a positive opinion from an Ethics Committee; • obtaining regulatory and other approvals to modify the conduct of a clinical trial; • recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial; • delays by a collaboration partner in running a companion diagnostic on patient samples; • having patients complete a trial, including having patients enrolled in clinical trials dropping out of the trial prior to treatment, or return for post-treatment follow-up; • clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial; • addressing any patient safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial; • adding new clinical trial sites; or • manufacturing sufficient quantities of qualified materials under cGMPs, releasing product in accordance with specifications, and delivering product candidates for use in clinical trials. We could also encounter future delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles, or with respect to the ALPHA3 trial, in lieu of observation alone. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Ethics Committees for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or based on a recommendation by any Data Safety Monitoring Committee. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ review of our data of our clinical trials may, depending on the data, also result in the delay, suspension or termination of one or more of our clinical trials, which would also delay or prevent the initiation of our other planned clinical trials. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. 67 Table of Contents The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established gene therapy and cell therapy products are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining or maintaining any regulatory approval. Because we are developing novel CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing and guidance from regulatory authorities may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT), formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies (OCTGT), within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (IBC), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the European Union a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. In this regard, on May 28, 2014, the EMA issued a recommendation that UCART19 be considered a gene therapy product under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs. We cannot conclude that our product candidates will receive a similar recommendation. These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our CAR T cell product candidates. The general approach for FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approval of a new biologic or drug is for the sponsor to provide dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical studies of the relevant biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical studies typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We expect ongoing FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities feedback on our trials, some of which may lead to changes in the trials, which could cause future delays to our trials. In addition, even if we believe the results are sufficiently compelling, such as for the ALPHA3 trial, the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could ultimately require longer-term follow-up results, additional data from our clinical trials or additional trials that could delay or prevent our first BLA submission. The FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require that we conduct a comparative trial against an approved therapy including potentially an approved autologous T cell therapy, which would 68 Table of Contents significantly delay our development timelines and require substantially more resources. In addition, the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may only allow us to evaluate patients that have failed or who are ineligible for autologous therapy, which are extremely difficult patients to treat and patients with advanced and aggressive cancer, and our product candidates may fail to improve outcomes for such patients. If the FDA or European Commission grant accelerated approval for our product candidates, as a condition for accelerated approval, the FDA or the European Commission may require us to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug or biologic may be subject to withdrawal procedures by the FDA that are more accelerated than those available for regular approvals. The FDA or European Commission may ultimately refuse to grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA, the European Commission, or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products. Our clinical trial results may also not support approval. In addition, our product candidates could be delayed in receiving approval or fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following: • the inability to resolve any future clinical hold; • the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that our product candidates are safe and effective for any of their proposed indications; • the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval, including due to the heterogeneity of patient populations; • we may be unable to demonstrate that our product candidates’ clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks; • the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials; • the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to support the submission of a BLA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere; • the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will review extensive CMC data, our manufacturing process and inspect the relevant commercial manufacturing facility and may not approve our manufacturing process or facility; • the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, EU, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval; and • we may be unable to agree on any required pediatric investigation plan with regulatory authorities prior to any BLA filing. We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for ALLO-647 in a timely manner or at all, which could delay any approval or commercialization of our allogeneic T cell product candidates. As we are concurrently developing ALLO-647 to be used as part of the lymphodepletion regimen for certain of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates, mapping a co-development path for dual approval of ALLO-647 and any of our CAR T cell product candidates and coordinating concurrent review with different divisions of competent regulatory authorities create additional regulatory uncertainty for us and may delay the development of our product candidates. As an example, coordinating concurrent review with the divisions of the FDA creates such regulatory uncertainty and may delay the development of our product candidates. We expect the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research division of the FDA to exercise authority over the regulatory approval of ALLO-647 while the CBER division will oversee the regulatory approval of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates. In addition, the FDA is requiring us to demonstrate the overall contribution of ALLO-647 to the benefit to risk ratio of the lymphodepletion regimen for cema-cel. We plan to assess ALLO-647 through part one of the ALPHA3 trial. Some clinical trial sites may elect not to participate, and we cannot be certain when or whether we will be able to successfully enroll the ALPHA3 trial in a timely manner or that the outcome of this study will support FDA approval of both cema-cel and 69 Table of Contents ALLO-647. Any delays to ALLO-647 approval could delay any approval or commercialization of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates. We anticipate that the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will impose equivalent obligations as part of the marketing authorization process in their territory. If we, or our collaborators, are required by the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to obtain approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic device in connection with approval of one of our product candidates, and we, or our collaborators, do not obtain, or face delays in obtaining, approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic device, we will not be able to commercialize the product candidate, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for that indication. If a satisfactory companion diagnostic is not commercially available, we may be required to create or obtain one that would be subject to regulatory approval requirements. For example, we are collaborating with Foresight Diagnostics as part of our clinical trial enrollment process for ALPHA3 to identify patients with MRD that we believe may be most likely to benefit from treatment with cema-cel. The process of validating such diagnostic can be time consuming and costly. Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and, to date, the FDA has generally required premarket approval of companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. Generally, when a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a therapeutic product, the FDA requires that the companion diagnostic be approved concurrent with approval of the therapeutic product and before a product can be commercialized. In the EEA, companion diagnostics are deemed to be in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) and are governed by Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR). IVDs, including companion diagnostics, must conform with the general safety and performance requirements (GSPR) of the IVDR by December 2028. If the FDA, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority, requires approval (or certification or clearance) of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or after the product candidate obtains marketing approval, we and/or third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval (or clearance, or certification) for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval or continued marketing of our related product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible, and scalable manufacturing process for the companion diagnostic or in transferring that process to commercial partners or negotiating insurance reimbursement plans, all of which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates, if approved, on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Our ALPHA3 trial design requires the use of Foresight Diagnostics’ PhasED-Seq ™ Circulating Tumor DNA Platform as a companion diagnostic for cema-cel. Although the Foresight CLARITY ™ Investigational Use Only (IUO) MRD test, powered by PhasED-Seq, has received IDE approval from the FDA allowing PhasEd-Seq to be used as part of the ALPHA3 trial, there can be no assurance that Foresight Diagnostic will be able to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals to support ALPHA3 clinical trial sites outside the US, or that we would be able to manage logistical challenges associated with timely international shipment of patient samples to Foresight’s US facility for testing, all of which could delay the expansion of our ALPHA3 trial to trial sites outside the US. Furthermore, in order to commercialize cema-cel based on the outcome of our ALPHA3 trial, the Foresight Diagnostics’ MRD assay must be approved by regulatory agencies, and in some jurisdictions approved as a companion diagnostic test. A delay or failure by Foresight Diagnostics to obtain regulatory approval may delay the commercialization of cema-cel, if approved based on the outcome of our ALPHA3 trial. Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation and fast track designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. We have received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation for cema-cel, ALLO-316, and ALLO-715 and fast track designation for ALLO-605, ALLO-316, and ALLO-647. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation or fast track designation for any of our additional product candidates. RMAT designation and fast track designation do not change the FDA’s standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will 70 Table of Contents result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation and fast track designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges. We plan to seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates across various indications, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the same biologic (meaning, a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other biologics that do not have the same principal molecular structural features for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product. The FDA granted orphan drug designation to ALLO-605 and ALLO-715 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. We plan to seek orphan drug designation for additional product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products, but may never receive such designations. Some of our product candidates target indications that are not orphan indications. In addition, even with orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of genetic research and therapies involving gene editing may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates. The gene-editing technologies that we use are novel. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, and products incorporating gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Given the previous clinical hold involved a chromosomal abnormality, our manufacturing or gene editing may be further scrutinized or may be viewed as unsafe, even though our investigation found that the abnormality was not related to our manufacturing or gene editing. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in our targeted diseases prescribing our product candidates as treatments in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar, treatments for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing may result in fewer physicians prescribing our treatments or may reduce the willingness of patients to utilize our treatments or participate in clinical trials for our product candidates. In addition, given the novel nature of gene-editing and cell therapy technologies, governments may place import, export or other restrictions in order to retain control or limit the use of the technologies. For instance, any limits on exporting certain of our technology to China may adversely affect Overland Therapeutics, a joint venture between us and HBP. Increased negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations either in the United States or internationally, would have a 71 Table of Contents negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for such product candidates. We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to competition sooner than anticipated. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act) to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products. We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. The European Union provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity for innovative medicinal products in relation to which marketing authorization is granted. Upon grant of marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess an application for marketing authorization for a generic or a biosimilar for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which an application may be made for authorization of a generic or biosimilar, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until 10 years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community. The use of engineered T cells as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community. We expect physicians in the large bone marrow transplant centers to be particularly important to the market acceptance of our products and we may not be able to educate them on the benefits of using our product candidates for many reasons. For example, certain of the product candidates that we will be developing target a cell surface marker that may be present on cancer cells as well as non-cancerous cells. It is possible that our product candidates may kill these non-cancerous cells, which may result in unacceptable side effects, including death. Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including: • the clinical indications for which our product candidates are approved; • physicians, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and patients considering our product candidates as a safe and effective treatment; • the potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates over alternative treatments; • the prevalence and severity of any side effects; • product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; 72 Table of Contents • limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; • the timing of market introduction of our product candidates as well as competitive products; • the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments; • the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities; • the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities; • relative convenience and ease of administration, including as compared to alternative treatments and competitive therapies; and • the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete. Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors including governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations and commercial payors, among others. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates. Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. We expect downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing to continue. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. The advancement of healthcare reform may negatively impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. 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. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability. Our business could be negatively impacted by environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) matters or our reporting of such matters. There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees, partners, and other stakeholders concerning ESG matters, and in many cases with conflicting views. While we have had internal efforts directed at ESG matters and preparations for increased future disclosures, we may be perceived by certain stakeholders as not acting responsibly in connection with these matters, which could negatively impact us. Moreover, the SEC recently adopted rules designed to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures, which have been stayed pending judicial review. If these rules or other climate-related disclosures 73 Table of Contents rules become effective, they may significantly increase our compliance and reporting costs and may also result in disclosures that certain investors or other stakeholders deem to negatively impact our reputation or that harm our stock price. Additionally, the increasing divergent expectations and standards among policymakers, regulators and investors, could make it more difficult to comply with the various federal, state and foreign ESG-related regulations in the jurisdictions in which we may have operations. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business. We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our license agreements with Pfizer, Servier and Cellectis. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, we are dependent on our license with Cellectis for gene-editing technology that is necessary to produce certain of our engineered T cells. In addition, we are reliant on Servier in-licensing from Cellectis some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us, including certain intellectual property rights relating to ALLO-501 and cema-cel. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. For instance, Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in ALL, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates. Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to: • the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; • whether and the extent to which our technology and processes may infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement; • our right to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties under collaborative development relationships; • our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and • the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners. For example, previously we and Servier had different interpretations regarding the respective parties’ respective rights and obligations under the Original Servier Agreement. In May 2024, we entered into the Servier Amendment which clarified each parties rights and obligations. There can be no assurance that further contract interpretation issues will not arise or that we would be able to amicably resolve such issues. If other issues arise over intellectual property that we have licensed, or license in the future, it could prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, and we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer. If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Under the Servier Agreement, we have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize certain anti-CD19 allogeneic T cell product candidates, including cema-cel, and we hold the commercial rights to these product candidates in the 74 Table of Contents United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom. We also have an exclusive worldwide license from Cellectis to its TALEN gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against 15 different cancer antigens. The Servier Agreement gives us access to TALEN gene-editing technology for all product candidates under the agreement. Certain intellectual property which is covered by these agreements may have been developed with funding from the U.S. government. If so, our rights in this intellectual property may be subject to certain research and other rights of the government. Additional patent applications have been filed, and we anticipate additional patent applications will be filed, both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict: • if and when patents will issue; • the degree and range of protection any issued patents will afford us against competitors including whether third parties will find ways to invalidate or otherwise circumvent our patents; • whether or not others will obtain patents claiming aspects similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications; or • whether we will need to initiate litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose. Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as CAR-based product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering compositions of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope thereof, for example through inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review or ex parte reexamination before the USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, which may result in such patents being cancelled, narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. United States patent applications containing at any time a claim not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013 are subject to the “first to file” system implemented by the America Invents Act (2011). This first to file system will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For United States applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the America Invents Act, which brought into effect significant changes to the United States patent laws, including new procedures for challenging patent applications and issued patents. Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties, including any strategic partners, may not prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of trade secrets and other proprietary information. In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any 75 Table of Contents other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Trade secrets, however, may be difficult to protect. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees and key consultants who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or inappropriately used, or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, we have and may continue to transfer technology to Overland Therapeutics or its affiliates in certain developing countries, and we cannot be certain that we or Overland Therapeutics or any of its affilia