AtaiBeckley Inc. 10-K

10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 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, 2025 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: 001-43037 AtaiBeckley Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 41-3357923 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) c/o atai Life Sciences US, Inc. c/o Industrious NYC 250 West 34th Street New York , New York 10119 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) ( 332 ) 282-0507 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) 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 $0.01 per share ATAI The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (Nasdaq Global Market) 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 Section 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 ☒ Smaller 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 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, 2025, the last business day of the Registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $ 361.3 million. Solely for purposes of this disclosure, shares of common stock held by executive officers, directors and certain shareholders of the Registrant as of such date have been excluded because such holders may be deemed to be affiliates. As of February 27, 2026, the Registrant had 364,745,985 shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, are incorporated herein by reference in Part III where indicated. ATAI BECKLEY INC. FORM 10-K Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 4 Item 1A. Risk Factors 27 Item 1B. Item 1C. Unresolved Staff Comments Cybersecurity 78 78 Item 2. Properties 80 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 81 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 82 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 83 Item 6. [Reserved] 84 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 85 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 100 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 102 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 174 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 174 Item 9B. Other Information 174 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 175 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 176 Item 11. Executive Compensation 176 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 176 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 176 Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 177 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 178 Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 183 i CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORW ARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (the “Form 10-K”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements contained in this Form 10-K other than statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding our future operating results and financial position; the success, cost, and timing of development of our product candidates, including the progress of preclinical studies and clinical trials and related milestones; the commercialization of our current product candidates and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue, if approved, including our ability to successfully build a specialty sales force and commercial infrastructure to market our current product candidates and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue; the timing of and our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals; our business strategy and plans, including the benefits of our corporate restructuring; potential acquisitions, partnerships and other strategic arrangements; the sufficiency of our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments to fund our operations; and the plans and objectives of management for future operations and capital expenditures. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “initiate,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “potentially,” “preliminary,” “likely,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including without limitation: the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions described under "Summary Risk Factors" below, “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II and elsewhere in this Form 10‑K. Any forward-looking statements made herein speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K, and you should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, performance, or achievements reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Form 10-K or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations. Additionally, certain information we may disclose (either herein or elsewhere) is informed by the expectations of various stakeholders or third-party frameworks and, as such, may not necessarily be material for purposes of our filings under U.S. federal securities laws, even if we use “material” or similar language in discussing such matters. GENERAL Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our,” “atai” or the “Company” refer to ATAI Life Sciences N.V and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the consummation of the strategic combination with Beckley Psytech (the “Beckley Psytech Transaction”), to Atai Beckley N.V. and its consolidated subsidiaries after the consummation of the Beckley Psytech Transaction and prior to the Redomiciliation Transaction (as defined below) and to AtaiBeckley Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries after the consummation of the Redomiciliation Transaction. In addition, “AtaiBeckley” refers to AtaiBeckley Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries after the consummation of the Redomiciliation Transaction. References to “Form 10-K” and “Annual Report on Form 10-K” herein refer to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. All references to years, unless otherwise noted, refer to our fiscal years, which end on December 31. We were incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands as Adripa Holding B.V. on September 10, 2020 to become a holding company for ATAI Life Sciences AG, and on January 11, 2021, our name was changed to ATAI Life Sciences B.V. Prior to our initial public offering ("IPO") on June 22, 2021, we converted the legal form of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. into a public company with limited liability and our name into ATAI Life Sciences N.V. On November 5, 2025, following the completion of our acquisition of Beckley Psytech Limited, we changed our name to Atai Beckley N.V. on November 5, 2025. On December 30, 2025, we changed our corporate domicile from the Netherlands to the United States, when Atai Beckley N.V. merged with and into atai Life Sciences Luxembourg S.A., a Luxembourg public limited liability company created for the purpose of effectuating the redomiciliation, with atai Life Sciences Luxembourg S.A. surviving the merger, after which atai Life Sciences Luxembourg S.A. subsequently converted into a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware under the name AtaiBeckley Inc.(the “Redomiciliation Transaction”). We may announce material business and financial information to our investors using our investor relations website at https://ir.ataibeckley.com. We therefore encourage investors and others interested in AtaiBeckley to review the information that we make available on our website, in addition to following our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), webcasts, press releases and conference calls. Information contained on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 1 SUMMARY RISK FACTORS Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those summarized below. 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 headings “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following: • We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never be profitable; • Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business and to assess our future viability; • If we are unable to obtain funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or discontinue our product candidate development efforts; • Raising additional capital, such as through future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to current product candidates or to any future product candidates on unfavorable terms; • Our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will be successfully developed and/or receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized; • We may not achieve our publicly announced milestones according to schedule, or at all; • We currently rely on qualified healthcare professionals working at third-party clinical trial sites to administer certain of our product candidates in our clinical trials, and we expect this to continue upon approval, if any, of our current or future product candidates. If third-party sites fail to recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified healthcare professionals or effectively manage their professionals, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed; • Research and development of drugs targeting the central nervous system, or CNS, is particularly difficult, and it can be difficult to predict and understand why a drug has a positive effect on some patients but not others, which may reduce the likelihood our product candidates are ultimately approved and therefore may have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results; • The production and sale of our product candidates may be considered illegal or may otherwise be restricted due to the use of controlled substances, which may also have consequences for the legality of investments from foreign jurisdictions and therefore we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates in such jurisdictions, which will adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations; • We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before we do or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition; • We rely on third parties to assist in conducting our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing; • If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our existing product candidates or any other product candidates that we may identify, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection we currently have or obtain in the future is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may pursue may be impaired; • Third parties may claim that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts; • Our business is subject to global financial and economic conditions and geopolitical events, including overall market volatility in the global financial markets, as well as political, trade and regulatory developments; • Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations; 2 • Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, directors, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel; • A pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease may materially and adversely affect our business, including our preclinical studies, clinical trials, trial sites, third parties on whom we rely, our supply chain, our ability to raise capital, our ability to conduct regular business and our financial results; and • If we fail to maintain an effective system of disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable regulations could be impaired. 3 PART I Item 1. Business . Founded in 2025 through the strategic combination of atai Life Sciences N.V. and Beckley Psytech Limited, AtaiBeckley is a clinical-stage biotechnology company on a mission to create breakthroughs for people with difficult-to-treat mental health conditions. Our work is grounded in rigorous science to deliver meaningful outcomes for the patients we serve. Mental health disorders are highly prevalent and estimated to affect more than one billion people globally. The economic burden of these disorders is substantial and is growing rapidly. Between 2009 and 2019, spending on mental health care in the United States increased by more than 50%, reaching $225.0 billion, and a Lancet Commission report estimates that the global economic cost will reach $16.0 trillion by 2030. While current treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (“SSRIs”) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (“SNRIs”) are well established and effective for certain patients, approximately 65% of patients do not achieve remission of their symptoms after up to four antidepressant treatment trials, translating to a significant unmet medical need. Our Programs We aim to create breakthroughs in mental health by developing effective, rapid-acting and convenient treatments that could transform patient outcomes. We are committed to leading a new era of mental health treatment – one that not only offers relief from symptoms, but the possibility of an improved quality of life and lasting change. We have built a diversified pipeline of investigational psychedelic-based neuroplastogens designed to address some of the most urgent unmet needs in mental health. Our programs include: • BPL-003: Nasal spray mebufotenin (5-MeO-DMT) benzoate for treatment-resistant depression (“TRD”); • VLS-01: Buccal film dimethyltryptamine (“DMT”) for TRD; • EMP-01: Oral formulation of a stable HCl salt form of the R-enantiomer of 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (“R-MDMA”) for social anxiety disorder (“SAD”); and • A drug discovery program to identify novel, non-hallucinogenic 5-HT2AR agonists for TRD and Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”). We believe psychedelics are emerging as novel breakthrough therapies for mental health disorders, such as depression, supported by growing scientific evidence, recent regulatory advancements and increasing patient and physician acceptance. Clinical studies have demonstrated the potential safety and efficacy profile of psychedelics, particularly their rapid onset of effect and sustained efficacy after a short course of administration. We believe these programs, which include both novel molecular entities and optimized variants of known compounds, have the potential to address significant unmet needs in mental health treatment. We are committed to innovation in the mental health space as exemplified by our drug discovery program and its focus on identifying new molecules with psychedelic-like pharmacology but without hallucinogenic potential. In addition to these investments in novel chemical entity ("NCE") discovery, intellectual property development has been a key strategic component since inception. Redomiciliation On December 30, 2025, as part of the previously announced plan to change our corporate domicile from the Netherlands to the United States via Luxembourg, as approved by our shareholders, we merged with and into atai Life Sciences Luxembourg S.A., a Luxembourg public limited liability company (“atai LuxCo”). On December 30, 2025, atai LuxCo then consummated the conversion of atai LuxCo into a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware under the name AtaiBeckley Inc. As a result of the Redomiciliation Transaction, AtaiBeckley Inc. became the successor issuer to Atai Beckley N.V. pursuant to Rule 12g‑3(a) under the Exchange Act. 4 Our Pipeline Our pipeline includes wholly owned psychedelic-based product candidates across multiple neuropsychiatric indications including depression and anxiety. The table below summarizes the status of our core product candidate portfolio as of the date of this Form 10-K. 1. All timing provided is estimated; 2. Trial initiation defined as central regulatory and ethics approval. Abbreviations: DMT = Dimethyltryptamine; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; R-MDMA = R-enantiomer of 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine; EOP2 = FDA End of Phase 2; TRD = Treatment-Resistant Depression. The following details our psychedelic and non-psychedelic programs, recent advancements in our ongoing clinical trials and upcoming milestones: BPL-003: Mebufotenin benzoate for TRD • Product Candidate Concept : BPL-003 is a dry powder, intranasal formulation of the benzoate salt form of mebufotenin, a psychoactive indolealkylamine derivative of tryptamine. Mebufotenin is a serotonergic psychedelic due to its ability to bind to a variety of serotonin (“5-HT”) receptors where it predominantly acts as an agonist. Its agonist actions at serotonin 1A ("5-HT 1A ") and serotonin 2A ("5-HT 2A ") receptors are considered to be the most important for the majority of its reported effects. • Disease Overview : Depression is a mood disorder that affects one’s thoughts, behaviors and emotions often causing a prolonged depressed mood and other symptoms severely impacting an individual’s ability to live a normal life. TRD occurs when someone with depression does not experience symptom improvement, despite trying at least two different antidepressants. Of the estimated 300 million people who suffer from depression worldwide, 50% have depression which is treatment resistant. While there are a wide range of available pharmacological therapies for depression, including SSRIs, SNRIs, atypical antipsychotics, and Spravato ® these drugs have significant limitations for many patients, including slow onset of effect, inadequate response, and significant side effects. Given the limitations of existing therapeutic treatments, there continues to be a high unmet need for antidepressants that provide faster onset of effect, greater efficacy, higher remission rates, and improved tolerability. • Recent Advancements: BPL-003 is currently being investigated as a treatment for people with TRD, with an ongoing Phase 2a open-label study and a completed Phase 2b double-blind, randomized, quadruple-masked study with open-label extension. Through an End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in February 2026, we obtained feedback from the agency on the design of the Phase 3 clinical program, which will consist of two pivotal trials each with a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled core study followed by a 52-week open-label extension. We remain on track to initiate the Phase 3 program in the second quarter of 2026. Phase 2a study in TRD: In March 2024, Beckley Psytech announced positive initial results from Part 1 of the ongoing four-part Phase 2a open-label study in patients with moderate to severe TRD. The study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a single 10 mg dose of BPL-003 in patients who were not taking concomitant antidepressants. 12 subjects were dosed, and 11 met the criteria for per-protocol analysis. Patients were followed for 12 weeks post-dosing, with assessments conducted at multiple points throughout the study. Efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). A single 10 mg dose induced a rapid antidepressant response (≥50% reduction in MADRS score) in 55% of patients the day after dosing. This effect was durable, with the 55% response rate maintained at weeks 4 and 12. Remission (MADRS score ≤10) was achieved by 55% of patients at Week 4 and 45% at Week 12. BPL-003 was well tolerated, with 5 adverse events predominantly mild or moderate; the most common (>10%) were nasal discomfort, headaches, nausea and vomiting, consistent with Phase 1 findings. No serious adverse events were reported. Acute effects resolved on the day of dosing, and patients were generally discharge-ready in less than two hours. In May 2025, atai Life Sciences announced positive topline data from Part 2 of Beckley Psytech’s Phase 2a study of BPL-003 in patients with TRD receiving a stable dose of SSRI therapy. 12 subjects were dosed and followed for 12 weeks. A single dose of BPL-003 induced rapid and durable antidepressant effects, with mean MADRS reduction of 18 points the day after dosing, 19 points at one month and 18 points at three months. All adverse events were mild or moderate, and no serious adverse events were reported. These results were consistent with the findings from Part 1 of the study. In September 2025, atai Life Sciences and Beckley Psytech announced positive data from Part 3 of the Phase 2a study evaluating a two-dose induction regimen of BPL-003 in patients with TRD who were not on concurrent antidepressants. Patients received an 8 mg dose followed two weeks later by a 12 mg dose. Following the first (8 mg) dose, mean MADRS reductions of 13.3 points and 12.9 points were observed at day 2 and Day 8, respectively. One week after the second (12 mg) dose, the total mean reduction reached 19.0 points, with effects sustained through Week 12 (13.7 points from baseline). Remission rates were 25% one week after the initial 8 mg dose, increasing to 50% at Week 8 and 42% at Week 12. Adverse events were mild or moderate, with no serious drug-related adverse events reported. Patients generally met discharge-readiness criteria within two hours following both doses. The data from Part 3 demonstrate that a second dose of BPL-003 at Week 2 was associated with additional reductions in MADRS score without adversely affecting the safety or tolerability profile. We believe the short-duration and time-to-discharge observed in Parts 1-3 were consistent with a potentially shorter in-clinic treatment paradigm. In March 2026, we announced the first patient dosed in the Part 4 cohort of the Phase 2a study, evaluating a two-dose induction regimen of BPL-003 (8 mg followed by 8 mg two weeks later) in patients receiving defined antidepressants. Patients will be followed for an additional 10 weeks, and initial data are expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. Phase 2b study in TRD: In March 2025, Beckley Psytech announced that it had completed patient enrollment in the eight-week, randomized, quadruple-masked, controlled Phase 2b study of BPL-003 for patients with TRD. The study evaluated a single 12mg or 8mg dose of BPL-003 compared to a sub-perceptual 0.3mg comparator dose in a total of 196 enrolled patients. Efficacy was assessed by masked raters using the MADRS scale at several time points, with the primary endpoint at Week 4 and the final assessment at Week 8. In July 2025, atai Life Sciences and Beckley Psytech announced positive topline results from the Phase 2b study of BPL-003 in patients with TRD. The study was conducted across 38 sites in six countries, and 193 patients were included in the topline efficacy dataset. Patients were randomized to receive a single 12 mg (n=73), 8 mg (n=46), or 0.3 mg comparator (n=74) dose of BPL-003 and were followed for eight weeks with efficacy assessments conducted by centralized, blinded raters using the MADRS at Day 2, Day 8, Day 29, and Day 57. The trial met its primary and all key secondary endpoints. At Day 29, a single 12 mg dose of BPL-003 demonstrated a statistically significant mean reduction of 11.2 points from baseline in MADRS compared to a 5.8-point reduction with the 0.3 mg comparator (p = 0.0033). A single 8 mg dose produced a mean reduction of 12.0 points (p=0.0032 vs. comparator) at the same time point. Statistically significant differences for both the 8 mg and 12 mg doses were observed as early as Day 2 and were generally maintained through Week 8. Durability of effect was also observed. At Day 57, the 8 mg group showed a mean change of 10.7 points from baseline and the 12 mg group showing a mean change of 10.3 points compared with a 5.2-point reduction in the 0.3 mg group. BPL-003 was generally well-tolerated across all dose arms, with approximately 99% of treatment-emergent adverse events classified as mild or moderate, and no drug-related serious adverse events or suicide-related safety signals. The majority of patients met readiness-for-discharge criteria 90 minutes post-dose, which suggests BPL-003 could fit within the existing 2-hour in-clinic interventional psychiatry treatment paradigm established by Spravato ® . Based on these results, the 8 mg dose was selected for advancement into Phase 3 clinical studies. In November 2025, we announced positive top-line results from the Phase 2b open-label extension (OLE) study of BPL-003. In the OLE, a second 12 mg dose was administered eight weeks after the initial dose received in the core trial (12 mg, 8 mg, or 0.3 mg). This second dose produced additional rapid-onset and clinically meaningful antidepressant effects that were sustained for up to eight weeks. Among patients who had received either 8 mg or 12 mg in the core study (n=60), the mean reduction in MADRS total score at Day 57 (Week 16 of the Phase 2b trial) was 19.0 points, with a response rate of 63% and a remission rate of 48%. Patients who initially received the 0.3 mg comparator dose in the core study (n=47) demonstrated a mean reduction of 14.0 points in MADRS score at Day 57 in the OLE, consistent with the antidepressant effects observed in patients who had received a single active dose in the core study. Among patients who initially received an 8 mg dose in the core study (n=23), the mean reduction in MADRS score at Day 57 in the OLE was 22.3 points, with an 81% response rate (≥50% improvement in MADRS total score) and a 67% remission rate (MADRS ≤10) at the same time point. BPL-003 was well-tolerated with the majority of 6 treatment-emergent adverse events occurring on the day of the dosing. Most were classified as mild or moderate, and they were transient in nature. One serious drug-related AE was reported which resolved with additional in-patient monitoring and support. The topline results from the OLE study were consistent with the previously announced results from the eight-week, blinded core study. Safety and efficacy data from both the core and OLE portions of the Phase 2b clinical trial supported the selection of the 8 mg dose for advancement into Phase 3 development and indicated the potential for additional benefit with repeat dosing. Following these results, AtaiBeckley completed an End-of-Phase 2 (EOP2) meeting with the FDA to obtain feedback on clinical trial designs and other key elements of the Phase 3 program. The Phase 3 program is designed to include two pivotal studies, ReConnection 1 and ReConnection 2, conducted in parallel. Both will include a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled core study followed by a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) in which participants may receive individualized retreatment with BPL-003, subject to pre-specified eligibility criteria. • ReConnection 1: The core study will enroll approximately 350 participants and will evaluate a single-dose of BPL-003 across three treatment arms - 8 mg, 4 mg, and placebo (randomized 2:1:2). This trial is designed to replicate and extend the treatment response observed in the Phase 2b study and to further characterize the dose–response relationship for BPL-003. • ReConnection 2: The core study will enroll approximately 300 participants and will evaluate BPL-003 administered on Day 1 and Day 15 across two arms - 8 mg BPL-003 and placebo (randomized 1:1). This trial is designed to investigate a two-dose induction model of BPL-003 as a potential treatment option to increase magnitude and durability of initial response. The primary endpoint in both pivotal trials will be the change from baseline in the MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) total score at Week 4 (Day 29) of the response in the 8 mg BPL-003 treatment arm compared to placebo. In the OLE, participants may receive 8 mg BPL-003 at 8‑ or 12‑week intervals, subject to certain conditions for re-treatment eligibility, with the goal of maintaining remission and assessing long‑term safety, durability of effects, and treatment patterns. Initiation of the Phase 3 program is planned for the second quarter of 2026. VLS-01: DMT for TRD • Product Candidate Concept: VLS-01 is an investigational proprietary oral transmucosal film formulation of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) applied to the buccal surface and is being developed for the treatment of people suffering from treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Pharmacologically, VLS-01 is a partial to full agonist of the 5HT 1/2/6/7 receptors and has been designed to potentially offer rapid, robust, and durable efficacy with a favorable safety profile. VLS-01 has been modeled on a short-duration interventional psychiatry treatment paradigm, positioning it for integration into existing care models. In a third-party study, intravenous (“IV”) DMT has demonstrated rapid-acting antidepressant effects in patients with MDD. • Disease Overview: See “— BPL-003 - Disease Overview” for an overview of TRD. • Recent Advancements: VLS-01 is being developed as a potential rapid-acting treatment for people with TRD, supported by a completed Phase 1b study in healthy volunteers demonstrating favorable safety results, dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, and robust, dose-dependent subjective effects comparable to IV DMT. In March 2025, we initiated the Elumina Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating VLS-01 in adults with TRD across two treatment periods designed to assess both rapid antidepressant effects and the contribution of repeat dosing. Topline results from this study are anticipated in the second half of 2026. Phase 1b Study in Healthy Volunteers: In August 2024, we announced positive topline results from the Phase 1b trial evaluating the relative safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (“PK”) and pharmacodynamics (“PD”) of VLS-01 compared to IV DMT. The single center, open-label study enrolled 17 healthy participants, each of whom received IV DMT followed by escalating VLS-01 doses of 20mg (N=8), 60mg (N=6), 120mg (N=14) or 160mg (N=16) with 28-day washout periods. Peak plasma concentrations ("Cmax") were dose-proportional and comparable between the higher VLS-01 doses (120mg and 160mg) and the 30mg IV DMT dose, with Tmax generally occurring within 30-45 minutes. Robust dose-dependent subjective effects, assessed by the Subjective Intensity Rating Scale (“SIRS”), were seen at the 120mg and 160mg doses. In the 120mg dose cohort: 13/14 participants achieved SIRS scores greater than seven out of ten, and these subjective effects were fully resolved by 120 minutes. VLS-01 demonstrated a favorable safety profile and was well tolerated with all adverse events classified as either mild or moderate, and most resolving on the day of dosing. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, dissociation, euphoric mood and nausea. Phase 2b Study in TRD: In March 2025, we announced dosing of the first patient in the Elumina trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study of VLS-01 in TRD. The study consists of two treatment periods. In the first treatment period, approximately 142 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a 120mg dose of VLS-01 or placebo on Day 1 and again at 7 Week 2. The primary endpoint is change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 4, with blinded follow-up extending to Week 14 to assess durability. The second treatment period starts at Week 14 and will explore the response to two different dose levels of VLS-01. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive a third dose of either 60mg or 120mg of VLS-01. Final safety and efficacy assessment will be conducted two weeks after administration of the third dose. We anticipate reporting topline data for the Elumina study in the second half of 2026. EMP-01: R-MDMA for SAD • Product Candidate Concept : EMP-01 is a novel, investigational, oral formulation of a stable HCl salt form of R-MDMA, the R-enantiomer of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in development for Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD). It is engineered to elicit empathogenic and psychedelic subjective effects while exhibiting reduced dopaminergic and noradrenergic activity compared with racemic MDMA. Preclinical and Phase 1 data suggest that R-MDMA showed a more selective serotonergic profile with fewer stimulant-related physiological effects than the racemic mixture. EMP-01 is designed to induce a transient, inward-focused altered-state experience characterized by heightened emotional insight and openness, consistent with engagement of 5-HT2A pathways and its entactogenic MDMA-class profile. We believe this differentiated pharmacology has the potential to enable safe, scalable outpatient administration for people with SAD. • Disease Overview: SAD is one of the most prevalent psychiatric conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 400–800 million individuals with a lifetime prevalence of approximately 12%. The disorder is characterized by persistent and debilitating fear, self-consciousness, and heightened anxiety during social interactions. SAD is frequently comorbid with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and substance use disorders, contributing to substantial functional impairment and reduced quality of life. In the United States alone, roughly 30 million adults are affected by SAD; however, only about 50% of affected individuals seek treatment. Even among patients who access care, treatment adequacy remains suboptimal, and around 50% of SAD patients do not achieve adequate response to first line therapies and often deal with chronic medication side effects. These gaps in diagnosis, access, side effects and treatment response highlight a significant unmet medical need and underscore the urgency for innovative, effective therapeutic approaches for SAD. • Recent Advancements : EMP-01 is being developed as a potential treatment for SAD. The program includes a completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study in healthy volunteers and a completed exploratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study in adults with SAD. In the Phase 1 study, EMP-01 demonstrated favorable safety results, dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, and dose-dependent subjective and biomarker changes. In February 2026, we announced positive topline results from the Phase 2a trial, which met its primary endpoint of safety and tolerability and demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements across key efficacy measures. Phase 1 Study in Healthy Volunteers: In January 2024, we announced topline results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose Phase 1 study conducted in 32 healthy volunteers across four dose cohorts (75 mg, 125 mg, 175 mg and 225 mg). EMP-01 was generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events and no study discontinuations reported. Pharmacokinetics were dose-proportional, and pharmacodynamic assessments demonstrated dose-dependent changes across subjective measures and blood-based biomarkers. EMP-01 also produced a differentiated subjective profile in comparison to published reports involving racemic MDMA on standardized questionnaires, including dose-dependent increases on measures associated with emotional breakthrough phenomena and altered-state experiences. Phase 2a Study in SAD: In February 2026, we announced topline results from the exploratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study evaluating EMP-01 in adults with SAD. The study met its primary endpoint, with EMP-01 demonstrating a favorable and manageable safety and tolerability profile, including no serious adverse events and no treatment-emergent suicidal behavior or intent. Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without intervention. The multi-center study enrolled 71 adults with moderate-to-severe SAD who were randomized to receive two 225 mg doses of EMP-01 or placebo, administered 28 days apart, with psychological support but no adjunctive psychotherapy. All clinician-rated assessments were conducted by blinded central raters. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability through Day 43, and the secondary endpoint was change in social anxiety symptoms from baseline to Day 43, using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). An additional exploratory endpoint included changes on the CGI-I (Clinician Global Impression-Improvement) scale. Secondary and exploratory efficacy endpoints showed encouraging signals. EMP-01 produced a numerically greater symptom reduction than placebo, as measured by LSAS, at Day 43 relative to baseline (least squares mean: -28.53 points vs. -16.67 points, respectively). Although the study was not powered for statistical significance, the placebo-adjusted least squares mean reduction for EMP-01 of 11.85 points on the LSAS at Day 43 (Hedges’ g = 0.45; p-value = 0.036, one-tailed) is consistent with a clinically meaningful improvement and a moderate treatment effect size. 8 On the CGI-I scale, which reflects a global impression of overall patient improvement, 49% of patients receiving EMP-01 were rated as “very much improved” or “much improved” compared to 15% in the placebo group. This 34-percentage-point difference corresponds to a Number Needed to Treat (NNT) of 2.95 (95% CI: 1.84, 7.42), indicating a clinically meaningful level of global improvement in the EMP-01 group. The LSAS comprises two subscales - Fear and Avoidance - which often show different timelines of improvement in SAD pharmacotherapy trials, with Fear typically improving first. In this study, EMP-01 produced simultaneous gains across both domains. By Day 43, LSAS Fear improved by -13.7 points (-25.4%) in the EMP-01 group vs. -8.1 (-15.5%) on placebo, and LSAS Avoidance improved by -15.1 points (-28.6%) in the EMP-01 group vs. -8.5 (-17.1%) on placebo. Because avoidance behaviors typically change gradually and often require prolonged real-world exposure, the early, parallel improvements in both Fear and Avoidance - after two dosing sessions and without psychotherapy - suggest that EMP-01 could influence both the emotional and behavioral dimensions of social anxiety disorder. Novel 5-HT2A Receptor Agonists (including non-hallucinogenic neuroplastogens) • Product Candidate Concept: Novel 5-HT2A receptor agonists were discovered that maintain non-hallucinogenic potential based on their inability to fully-substitute for a traditional psychedelic in rodent drug discrimination studies. These differentiated 5-HT2A receptor agonists are being further optimized and studied in a series of animal models to assess therapeutic potential. • Recent Advancements: In August 2025, we announced that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (“NIDA”), part of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), awarded us a multi-year, milestone-driven grant of up to $11.4 million to support the optimization and early-stage development of the our novel 5-HT2A/2C receptor agonists with non-hallucinogenic potential for opioid use disorder. The funding is intended to support lead optimization, translational proof-of-concept studies, and the toxicology and manufacturing work needed to file an Investigational New Drug application. Competition The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, with new approaches and technologies regularly emerging. We face competition across our current programs and expect to face competition with any future programs we may seek to develop and/or commercialize from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic pharmaceutical companies, among others. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. In addition, programs that we currently believe to be complementary may eventually become competitors. Many of the companies with which we compete or with which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do and may already have established markets for their products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approval for alternative or superior products. Our competitors also may compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, competitors may have higher name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Mergers and acquisitions within the industry may result in greater resources being concentrated among a small set of competitors. Smaller or emerging earlier-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly if they have collaborations with larger, established companies. We are aware that a number of companies are increasing their efforts in discovery of non-traditional alternative compounds including psychedelics. The commercial opportunity for our product candidates could reduce or be eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, we may also face competition from 501(c)(3) non-profit - medical research organizations, including the Usona Institute and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies ("MAPS"). Such non-profit organizations may be willing to provide products at cost or for free which could significantly disrupt the potential market for our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products faster than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, as well as the level of biosimilar or generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Depression Multiple therapies for depression exist, including common pharmacological treatments such as anti-depressants and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive based therapy. There are also non-pharmacological, somatic treatments for depression such as electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation, among others. However, these current therapies are ineffective or inadequately effective for a significant portion of patients. This treatment-resistant subset of depression is our initial therapeutic focus for several of our compounds. For TRD there are currently only two pharmacological treatments approved in the United States: (i) 9 SPRAVATO (S-ketamine) nasal spray, an NMDA receptor antagonist, approved by the FDA in March 2019 and marketed by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and (ii) a fixed dose combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine hydrochloride, which are individually available generically. In addition, there have been recent developments in the treatment of MDD, including AUVELITY (dextromethorphan/bupropion), a therapeutic marketed by Axsome Therapeutics, which was approved by the FDA in August 2022 and CAPLYTA (lumateperone, a therapeutic originally developed by Intra-Cellular Therapies (now Johnson & Johnson) and approved by the FDA in November 2025. Psychosocial interventions and non-pharmacological, somatic treatments may also be used for patients. We are aware of several other biotechnology companies with therapies in development for TRD and MDD including, GH Research, Helus Pharma, Definium Therapeutics, Neumora Therapeutics, Alto Neuroscience, Xenon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Inc., Acadia Pharmaceuticals, as well as COMPASS, in which we hold an equity stake. Anxiety Anxiety disorders are generally treated with medication, psychotherapy or both. Treatment often involves the use of antidepressants. However, these typically have a slow onset of action and a number of side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, drowsiness and weight gain. Benzodiazepines are also used to treat anxiety and can offer rapid reduction of symptoms, but their long-term use is associated with the development of tolerance, respiratory depression, drug dependence and sedative side effects. We are aware of several biotechnology companies with therapies in development for anxiety disorders including VistaGen Therapeutics, Engrail Therapeutics, Definium Therapeutics, and Helus Pharma. 10 Overview of our Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of intellectual property, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to product candidates and technology that are important to our business. In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business for which we do not consider patent protection appropriate. The intellectual property covering the technologies and product candidates related to our programs for partially owned platform companies are handled directly by the applicable platform companies, and we are not actively involved in the management of such intellectual property. For information regarding risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.” As of December 31, 2025, our intellectual property portfolio includes over 100 issued patents and over 200 pending applications worldwide, including 41 issued U.S. patents, 54 pending U.S. patent applications, 13 pending U.S. provisional applications, and 21 PCT applications. Our intellectual property portfolio for our key psychedelic programs are summarized in the table below. A description of our key psychedelic programs, strategic investments and non-psychedelic programs then follows. In addition, we have, and may continue to, enter into collaboration and licensing arrangements for research and development, manufacturing, and commercialization activities with counterparties for the development and commercialization of its product candidates. 1. Currently all in active prosecution as of 31 st December 2025. Abbreviations: TRD = Treatment Resistant Depression; SAD = Social Anxiety Disorder; RoA = Route of Administration. A description of our patents for our key psychedelic programs, strategic investments and non-psychedelic program as of December 31, 2025, follows below: VLS-01 Atai Therapeutics, Inc. owns six issued U.S. patents, seven pending U.S. patent applications, four pending PCT patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, one granted foreign patent in Chile, and thirty-eight pending foreign patent applications in Argentina, Taiwan, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation and UAE, covering (i) DMT compositions exhibiting unique PK profiles following transmucosal administration (ii) new DMT salts and polymorphic forms, including DMT succinate, (iii) DMT parenteral formulations, (iv) oral transmucosal films of DMT, (v) DMT intranasal and transdermal formulations, and (vi) methods of treating using DMT, including methods of treating treatment resistant depression. These issued patents and any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2041 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Therapeutics, Inc. owns four issued U.S. patents, five pending U.S. patent applications, two pending PCT patent applications, and twenty-six pending foreign applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, UAE, Argentina, and Taiwan, covering novel analogues, prodrugs and conjugates of dimethyltryptamine, methods and pharmaceutical compositions thereof. These issued patents and any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2042 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. 11 EMP-01 EmpathBio, Inc. owns four issued U.S. patents, eight pending U.S. patent applications, seven pending foreign patent applications in Canada, Europe and Mexico, and one pending PCT patent applications covering MDMA enantiomers and processes for the preparation of MDMA, its enantiomers and derivatives thereof. These issued patents and any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2042 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. EmpathBio, Inc. owns one issued U.S. patent, four pending U.S. patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional application, six pending foreign patent application in Europe and two pending PCT patent applications covering salts of R-MDMA and polymorphic forms and compositions comprising R-MDMA and methods of treating with the same, including methods of treating social anxiety disorder. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2043 and 2046, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. EmpathBio, Inc. owns three pending U.S. patent applications and four pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Canada, Europe and Japan covering uses of MDMA for treating stress related disorders, increasing exposure of R-MDA, and modulating aggression responses. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2043 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. EGX-A & EGX-B Atai Therapeutics, Inc. owns five issued U.S. patents, nine pending U.S. patent applications, three pending PCT patent applications, and twenty-two pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia and UAE covering novel 5-HT2A agonists and methods of using the same. These issued patents and any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2041 and 2045. Atai Therapeutics, Inc. owns, one PCT patent application covering non-hallucinogenic 5-HT2A agonists. Any patents issuing from this application, if granted, are expected to expire in 2044. BPL-003 Through our strategic combination with Beckley Psytech Limited, we acquired four issued U.S. patents, seventeen pending U.S. patent applications, six pending PCT patent applications, nine pending U.S. provisional applications, twenty foreign granted patents in Europe, United Kingdom, China, and Japan, nineteen pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and eight pending United Kingdom priority applications covering (i) benzoate salt of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (mebufotenin), (ii) formulations comprising 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine including the benzoate salt, (iii) methods of preparing the benzoate salt of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine, (iv) methods of treating using 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine including the benzoate salt to treat depression, (v) new polymorphic forms of the benzoate salt of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine. These issued patents and any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2041 and 2046, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. ELE-101 Amandala Neuro Limited (formerly Eleusis Holdings Limited), in which we own an 33.7% equity interest following the distribution by Beckley Psytech Limited of its interest in Eleusis Holdings Limited, owns two issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, four pending U.S. patent applications, two pending PCT patent applications and eleven pending foreign patent applications across Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, covering the benzoate salt of 4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (psilocin), methods of synthesis, methods of use, crystalline forms and formulations thereof. Amandala Neuro Limited also co-owns with Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State of University and Agricultural and Mechanical College one pending U.S. patent application and one pending foreign patent application in Europe covering methods of use of psilocin and 3-[2-(Dimethylamino)ethyl]-1H-indol-4-yl dihydrogen phosphate (psilocybin). Atai Therapeutics, Inc. has a strategic investment in Amandala Neuro Limited to accelerate the clinical development of short-duration psychedelics. RL-007 Recognify in-licenses twelve issued U.S. patents and thirty-six foreign issued patents in Europe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Russia, covering RL-007, including the pharmaceutical composition of and methods of using RL-007. The patents licensed to Recognify are expected to expire between 2026 and 2034, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Patents Individual patents have terms for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, utility patents issued for applications filed in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of a non-provisional patent application. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. With regard to our U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not file any corresponding non-provisional patent applications within 12 12 months of the provisional patent application filing date, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. All taxes, annuities or maintenance fees for a patent, as required by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and certain foreign jurisdictions, must be timely paid in order for the patent to remain in force during this period of time. The actual protection afforded by a patent may vary on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and can depend upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions and the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Our patents and patent applications may be subject to procedural or legal challenges by others. We may be unable to obtain, maintain and protect the intellectual property rights necessary to conduct our business, and we may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, which could materially harm our business. For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.” Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality, and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and independent contractors. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information, and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties, such agreements will not be breached, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.” Government Regulation and Product Approval The FDA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state, local and foreign entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates. Any drug candidates that we develop 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 those 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. U.S. Drug Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA") and its 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. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of required non-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with FDA’s good laboratory practice (“GLP”) requirements and other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application ("IND") which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; • submission to the FDA of a new drug application (“NDA”) after completion of all pivotal trials; • payment of user fees for the FDA review of the NDA; • a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the NDA for review; • satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable; 13 • potential FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • potential FDA inspection of the non-clinical and/or clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA, and • FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States. Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND is a request to the FDA for allowance to initiate a clinical trial in the United States. Once submitted, the IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA allowance to begin a clinical trial. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the safety results of the clinical trials and non-clinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the health authorities, as appropriate. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the health authorities and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. An independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. 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 informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides 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, including ClinicalTrials.gov. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. 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 product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages, dose tolerance and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials, with objectives around demonstrating proof-of-mechanism, proof-of-concept, or dose finding. • Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to evaluate the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA to demonstrate substantial evidence of efficacy. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA. 14 During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach alignment on the next phase of development. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. U.S. Review and Approval Process Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, including results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, new molecular entity NDAs and certain supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is deemed safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation. Once an NDA has been submitted, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting it for filing, to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once an NDA has been accepted for filing, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA"), guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA may refer an NDA to an advisory committee for review before deciding on the application. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts any required inspections of the manufacturing facilities where the product candidate and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as a clinical trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, non-clinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the 15 application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the product is distributed and used in a manner such that benefits of the product outweigh its risks. 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. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may withdraw or limit further marketing of the product based on the results of such post-marketing studies. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development or review of product candidates that meet certain criteria. For example, drugs 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. The sponsor of a fast track-designated product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and once submitted, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may also designate a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast-track designation features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. An NDA may be eligible for priority review if the product candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide significant improvement in safety or efficacy compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for standard review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals. In addition, depending on the design of the applicable clinical studies, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate 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 generally requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical trials to verify and describe the clinical benefit predicted by the surrogate or intermediate endpoint, and may require that such confirmatory trials be underway prior to granting accelerated approval. Drugs receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required confirmatory trials in a timely manner or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate. Post-approval Requirements Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There are also continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which 16 impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, or complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; • fines, warning letters, or untitled letters; • clinical holds on clinical studies; • refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals; • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; • consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs; • mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information; • the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling. In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Marketing Exclusivity Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA alternatively provides three years of non-patent exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential 17 to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity authorized under the FDCA. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of existing exclusivity or an available patent term if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a “written request” from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials, and the FDA’s grant of pediatric exclusivity does not require the FDA to approve labeling containing information on pediatric use based on the studies conducted. DEA Regulation The Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA is concerned with the control and handling and distribution of controlled substances, and with the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging, in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. They may be distributed for research uses under strict controls and approval by the DEA. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as security cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA, for example distribution reports for Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III substances that are narcotics, and other designated substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special authorization and notification requirements apply to imports and exports. In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. To meet its responsibilities, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Individual states also regulate controlled substances. After FDA market approval there is a process triggered for rescheduling controlled substances. At the initiation of review, the DEA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") (via the FDA), or an external petitioner can initiate a scheduling review to evaluate an eight-factor analysis assessing abuse potential, pharmacology, public health risk, and dependence liability. HHS then makes a scheduling recommendation to the DEA, which reviews HHS’s findings, publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, and solicits public comments before finalizing the new schedule. This process can take several months, but there is a process for an interim final rule for expedited action to prevent delays in patient access. This law requires the DEA to issue an interim final rule within 90 days of FDA approval, allowing the drug to be prescribed while final scheduling is completed. Foreign Government Regulation Our product candidates are subject to similar laws and regulations imposed by jurisdictions outside of the United States, and, in particular, the EU, governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization (“MA”), applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries, including the European Commission or national competent authorities in the EU, as well as regulatory agencies in the APAC region such as the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in Japan, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in China, and comparable authorities in other APAC jurisdictions, prior to the commencement of clinical trials or the marketing of product candidates in those countries. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements may result in, among other things, 18 fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Non-clinical studies and clinical trials Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) requirements. Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on GCPs as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial. The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”), which contains a centralized EU portal and database. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application ("CTA") to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol, and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025 and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply. Marketing Authorization In order to market our product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application (“MAA”). The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs: • “Centralized MA” are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Product for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and are valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of product candidates, such as: (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, or auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases and (iv) advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure is optional for product candidates containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for product candidates that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. 19 • “National MAs” are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for product candidates not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a EU member state, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state. Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the competent authorities make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIority MEdicines (“PRIME”) scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the PRIME scheme, a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Moreover, in the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all the conditions. Once the pending studies are provided, it can become a “standard” MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA ceases to be renewed. Furthermore, MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This MA is close to the conditional MA as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. Data and marketing exclusivity In the EU, new product candidates authorized for marketing, or reference products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA 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 entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Controlled Substances Controlled substances are not regulated at EU level and the EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the United Nations (“UN”) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (“together, “the UN Conventions”) codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence. 20 The UN Conventions regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV substances with Schedule II substances presenting the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances and Schedule I and IV substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse. The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. Before the relevant authority can issue an export authorization for a particular shipment, the exporter must provide the authority with a copy of the import authorization issued by the relevant authority of the importing country. Implementation of the obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are regulated at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another. Post-Approval Requirements Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance (“QPPV”) who is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of that system, and oversees the safety profiles of medicinal products and any emerging safety concerns. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”). All new MAAs must include a risk management plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of medicinal products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties. Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom Following the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021, and the implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, the United Kingdom (“UK”) is not generally subject to EU laws in respect of medicines. The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK, however, new legislation such as the (EU) CTR is not generally applicable in the UK. Under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ has delegated powers to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices. Since January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”), is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland, together, Great Britain (“GB”); broadly, Northern Ireland continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025, an arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labeling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from pre-existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). In April 2025, the UK adopted the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Amendment Regulations. The amendment, which will take full effect from 21 April 2026, aims to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the UK, increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the UK and make clinical trials more patient centered. MAs in the UK are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. In order to use the centralized procedure to obtain a MA that will be valid throughout the EEA, companies must be established in the EEA. Therefore, since Brexit, companies established in the UK can no longer use the EU centralized procedure and instead an EEA entity must hold any centralized MAs. In order to obtain a UK MA to commercialize products in the UK, an applicant must be established in the UK and must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. Applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916) and are made electronically through the MHRA Submissions Portal. The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, a 150-day assessment (subject to clock-stops) and a rolling review procedure. In addition, since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”) when reviewing certain types of MAAs. Pursuant to the IRP, the MHRA will take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted regulatory partners (e.g., the regulators in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, the U.S.A. and the EU). The MHRA will conduct a targeted assessment of IRP applications but retain the authority to reject applications if the evidence provided is considered insufficiently robust. The IRP allows medicinal products approved by such trusted regulatory partners that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update an MA in the UK. Applications should be decided within a maximum of 60 days if there are no major objections identified that cannot be resolved within such 60-day period and the approval from the trusted regulatory partner selected has been granted within the previous 2 years or if there are such major objections identified or such approval hasn’t been granted within the previous 2 years within 110 days. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals. In the UK, the initial duration of an MA is five years and following renewal will be valid for an unlimited period unless the MHRA decides on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicine on the market in the UK within three (3) years shall cease to be in force. Other Healthcare Laws Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state, federal and foreign anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and transparency laws and regulations regarding drug pricing and payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and/or individual imprisonment. Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales. Healthcare Reform In March 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, each as amended, collectively known as the ACA, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and fraud and abuse changes. Additionally, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations and imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the 22 constitutionality of the ACA. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which was temporarily suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, proposed and enacted legislation intended to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began on January 1, 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which went into effect in 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs, which will first be effective in 2027. Each year thereafter, more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the HHS price negotiation program, although the program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, or the impact of the IRA on our business. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) also included significant reforms to Medicaid, including an estimated $1.0 trillion in reduced federal Medicaid spending from 2025 through 2034, the imposition of work requirements for certain adult enrollees, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and increased cost-sharing for beneficiaries. These changes are expected to reduce overall Medicaid enrollment and access to care. Although the effect on our business is currently unknown, any decrease in the number of insured patients or reimbursement levels for our products, if approved, could adversely affect our revenue and commercial prospects. The Trump administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the U.S. While it is unclear whether and how the Trump proposals will be implemented, the Trump policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for our product candidates, if approved. On the one hand, President Trump has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have reportedly entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the Trump administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. In addition, pharmaceutical pricing and marketing has long been the subject of considerable discussion in Congress and among policymakers, and it is possible that Congress could enact additional laws that negatively affect the pharmaceutical industry. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states. We expect that additional state, federal and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products once approved or additional pricing pressures. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates. In the EU, potential reductions in prices and changes in reimbursement levels could be the result of different factors, including reference pricing systems, parallel distribution and parallel trade. It could also result from the application of external reference pricing mechanisms, which consist of arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries. Reductions in the pricing of our medicinal products in one EU member state could affect the price in other EU member states and, therefore, have a negative impact on our financial results. Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) of medicinal products in the EU is an essential element of the pricing and reimbursement decision-making process in a number of EU member states. The outcome of HTA has a direct impact on the pricing and reimbursement status granted to the medicinal product. A negative HTA by a leading and recognized HTA body concerning a medicinal product could undermine the prospects to obtain reimbursement for such product not only in the EU member state in which the negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU member states. On December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022, and has been applicable since January 2025, with phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as 23 well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. Environmental, Health and Safety We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, release and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products and the risk of injury, contamination or non-compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations cannot be eliminated. Certain of these laws also can result in liability without regard to fault or historic legality of actions. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent, and we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with such current or future laws and regulations. Data Privacy and Security Laws Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including health, data privacy, and consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data, and may apply to our business. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Human Capital Management As a company focused on creating new possibilities in mental health, we are working to transform patient outcomes by developing rapid-acting, durable and convenient mental health treatments. Our team is the key to our success, and we believe it is essential to invest in building an engaged, diverse, supported, and incentivized workforce who can help us achieve our vision. Following the strategic combination with Beckley Psytech Limited in November 2025, as of December 31, 2025, we had 99 full-time employees and 18 contractors or consultants doing regular work for us. This includes 23 employees and 2 consultants doing regular work for our Nualtis subsidiary. Of our full-time employees, 66 focus on driving forward research and development programs, either directly or through our subsidiaries. This also includes 20 employees driving forward research and development programs at Nualtis. Others provide strategic business development, finance, and executive leadership expertise, as well as operational, communications, legal and administrative services. Approximately 40% of our employees are located in the United Kingdom, 30% located in the United States, 25% located in Canada, and the reminder in various European locations. All of the Nualtis employees are located in Canada. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any significant work stoppages. Recruiting We remain committed to a talent acquisition strategy that prioritizes agility and alignment with our organizational goals. Our human resources team and hiring managers continue to take the lead in recruitment, leveraging their extensive networks and expertise to meet current hiring objectives. By focusing on delivering a seamless recruiting process and an outstanding candidate experience, we believe our approach attracts exceptional talent. Looking ahead, we are actively exploring innovative methods to connect with highly skilled professionals, keeping our recruitment efforts forward-thinking and impactful. We are committed to attracting and retaining top performing team members. We focus on creating a dynamic, vibrant, values-based culture that allows for autonomy, growth and impact while also offering a competitive total rewards package. Professional Development and Performance Management We have a bi-annual performance management cycle whereby employees are rated on both “what” they delivered (measured against agreed objectives and goals) and “how” they delivered (measured against the four core values and related behaviors). These reviews include self-evaluation, peer and manager feedback. The feedback focuses on strengths and opportunities for improvement to enable the professional development of all team members. 24 Core Values and Ethics Our core company values are: Rooted in Purpose, See Opportunities Where Others See None, Work the Problem and Keep it Simple. Our human capital philosophy is deeply rooted in these values, which form the core of everything from performance management cycle to hiring decisions. We have also developed a set of indicators of behavior to help staff and managers understand how to best live our values day to day: • Rooted in Purpose: We each have a personal 'why' that inspires our commitment to make a meaningful difference to those living with mental health disorders. • See Opportunities Where Others See None: We are trailblazers, thriving in the face of uncertainty and adversity while embracing challenges. • Work the Problem: We are hands-on, resilient, and adaptable, knowing that tackling issues together leads to effective solutions and shared success. • Keep it Simple: We prioritize clarity and simplicity in everything we do, enabling us to focus on what matters to drive meaningful results. All of our directors, officers and employees are responsible for upholding these values as set forth in our Code of Conduct, which forms the foundation of our policies and practices. Our Code of Conduct is available in the "Governance Overview" section of our website under "Investor - Corporate Governance," which is located at ir.ataibeckley.com. Total Rewards and Employee Engagement To attract and retain top talent, we offer a competitive total rewards package designed to align with market standards and individual performance. Our approach includes a combination of base salary, performance-based bonuses, and employee stock option grants to ensure a well-rounded compensation structure. A portion of every employee’s compensation is tied to performance, reinforcing our commitment to rewarding contributions that drive organizational success. We invest in the professional development of our employees. All of our employees are strongly encouraged to develop personal development plans with their manager in order to define their career goals, and we encourage regular peer and manager feedback. We also offer targeted learning and development opportunities, including team and 1-1 coaching; access to continual growth through online learning platforms; external training where appropriate; and in-house live training, among other opportunities. In addition, to further employee enrichment and engagement, we periodically survey our employees regarding their engagement levels. We use these survey results to determine how we can continue to create work environments that enable and motivate our employees and to develop a positive working culture. We also provide opportunities for our employees to take two working days each year to give back to their communities through volunteering. In addition, we hold regular company-wide team meetings aimed to connect with each other, foster a culture of transparency, receive updates from our management team and to discuss various other initiatives around the Company. We believe these initiatives foster a positive working environment. Inclusion and Belonging We believe that an inclusive culture is critical to AtaiBeckley’s success. We are proud to promote voices within and outside our organization, regardless of background, and are eager to learn from others’ experiences, as we know that an inclusive workforce is a business imperative and key to our long-term success. Hybrid office culture As of December 31, 2025, we utilize coworking spaces in Oxford, Berlin, New York and Boston to support our flexible, hybrid work model. We do not require employees to work from these locations; however, these spaces are available to facilitate in-person collaboration, team interaction and connection across functions. This approach allows employees to retain flexibility in how and where they work, while providing access to shared work environments that support collaboration and engagement when in-person interaction is beneficial. We also lease office, lab, and manufacturing spaces in Montréal, Canada through our Nualtis subsidiary Patient Impact AtaiBeckley develops transformative mental health therapies for individuals living with severe and often long-standing conditions, many of whom represent vulnerable communities with significant unmet needs and limited treatment options. We believe that those most affected by mental illness deserve a meaningful role in shaping how new treatments are developed, studied, and ultimately delivered. Patient Impact reflects AtaiBeckley’s commitment to embedding lived experience at the center of our work, ensuring that patient perspectives actively inform clinical development, participant experience, community engagement, and future models of care. 25 Through a formal materiality assessment conducted with key internal and external stakeholders, the Company identified patient trust, ethical engagement, trial participation experience, and community readiness as material factors influencing long-term success in mental health innovation. Patient Impact was designed to address these priorities by building long-term partnerships with patients, advocacy organizations, and community leaders, and by systematically incorporating lived experience into how we design and deliver our research programs. As part of this approach, AtaiBeckley collaborates with peer-support and patient advocacy organizations, including The Psychedelic Participant Advocacy Network (PsyPAN), to bring the voices of individuals with direct experience of psychedelic-assisted treatments into clinical design, participant support, and post-trial learning. These partnerships help strengthen ethical practice, improve trial journeys, and contribute to responsible, patient-centered standards across the evolving mental health treatment landscape. Beyond our clinical programs, the Company supports community initiatives focused on education, stigma reduction, and the development of patient-focused models of care, reinforcing our belief that scientific progress must be matched with compassion, trust, and shared responsibility. Patient Impact reflects our conviction that meaningful advances in mental health require not only breakthrough medicines, but deep collaboration with the people whose lives those medicines are intended to transform. Corporate Information Our office address and our principal executive office, or headquarters, is located at 250 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10119, and our telephone number is (332) 282-0507. Our website address is www.ataibeckley.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available for download, free of charge, through our investor relations website at ir.ataibeckley.com as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such material with the SEC. The information contained on, or that can be accessed from, our website does not form part of this document. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC. Additionally, the SEC maintains a website that contains our reports, proxy and information statements, and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov. 26 Item 1A. Risk Factors Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Form 10-K. The realization of any of these risks and uncertainties could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, growth and future prospects as well as our ability to accomplish our strategic objectives. In that event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment. Please also refer to the section titled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this Form 10-K. Risks Related to our Financial Position, Need for Additional Capital and Growth Strategy We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never be profitable. We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We anticipate that we will incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and have incurred losses in each year since our inception. Our net loss attributable to AtaiBeckley, Inc. stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 was $660.0 million and $149.3 million, respectively. We have no products that are approved for commercial sale and have not generated any commercial product revenue. We have financed operations predominantly through the sale of equity securities and debt financings. We continue to incur significant research and development, and other expenses related to ongoing operations and building our business infrastructure and expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. Revenue from the sale of any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the acceptance of the product by physicians and patients, the ability to obtain reimbursement at any price and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. Our growth strategy depends on our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if the number of addressable patients is not as anticipated, the indication or intended use approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than expected, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of drugs and medical devices, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of our expenses, or when we will be able to generate any meaningful revenue or achieve or maintain profitability, if ever. In addition, our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority, (“MHRA)”, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform preclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may identify. Even if our existing product candidates or any future product candidates that we may identify are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product and ongoing compliance efforts. Our failure to achieve sustained profitability would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our research and development pipeline, market our product candidates, if approved, and pursue or continue our operations. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital. Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business and to assess our future viability. We were founded in 2018. To date, we have invested most of our resources in developing technology, establishing our platform, building our intellectual property portfolio, fostering partnerships and executing strategic transactions, including our recent acquisition of Beckley Psytech, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital, building our management team and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to conduct later-stage clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product, conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization or obtain reimbursement in the countries of sale. In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities and may not be successful in such a transition. We also expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance. 27 If we are unable to obtain funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or discontinue our product candidate development efforts. Developing biotechnology products is expensive and time consuming, and we expect to require substantial additional capital to conduct research, preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current and future programs, establish pilot scale and commercial scale manufacturing processes and facilities, seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval, including building our own commercial sales, marketing and distribution organization. We regularly assess the ongoing development of our programs and may, from time to time, delay, limit or otherwise discontinue a program in order to allocate resources towards our existing programs, more developed programs or new investments. In addition, in connection with collaboration agreements relating to our programs, we may also be responsible for the payments to third parties of expenses that may, in certain instances, include milestone payments, license maintenance fees and royalties, including in the case of certain of our agreements with academic institutions or other companies from whom intellectual property rights underlying their respective programs have been in-licensed or acquired. Because the outcome of any preclinical or clinical development and regulatory approval process is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development, regulatory approval process and potential commercialization of our product candidates and any future product candidates we may identify. As of December 31, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of $85.3 million and short-term securities of $135.4 million. Based on our current operating plan, we estimate that our existing cash, including proceeds from our public offering of our common stock, marketable securities, and committed term loan funding as of the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with the SEC will be sufficient to fund operations into 2029. However, our operating plan has, and may continue to change as a result of many factors, some of which may be currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, sales of assets or programs, other sources, such as strategic collaborations or license and development agreements, or a combination of these approaches. We also may opportunistically seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations. Any such additional fundraising efforts for us may divert our management from their day-to-day responsibilities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates we may identify and pursue. Moreover, such financing may result in dilution to shareholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may adversely affect our business. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to: • the time and cost necessary to complete ongoing and planned clinical trials; • the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; • the progress, timing, scope and costs of our preclinical studies, clinical trials and other related activities for our ongoing and planned clinical trials, and potential future clinical trials, including progress and related milestones, the failure by third parties to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing, changes to trial sites, and other circumstances; • the costs of obtaining clinical and commercial supplies of raw materials and drug products for our product candidates, as applicable, and any other product candidates we may identify and develop; • our ability to successfully identify and negotiate acceptable terms for third-party supply and contract manufacturing agreements with contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”); • the costs of commercialization activities for any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval, including the costs and timing of establishing product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing capabilities, or entering into strategic collaborations with third parties to leverage or access these capabilities; • the amount and timing of sales and other revenues from our product candidates, if approved, including the sales price and the availability of coverage and adequate third-party reimbursement; • the cash requirements in purchasing additional equity from certain of our atai companies upon the achievement of specified development milestone events; • the cash requirements of developing our programs and our ability and willingness to finance their continued development; • the cash requirements of any future acquisitions or discovery of product candidates, including minority equity investments in third parties; • the time and cost necessary to respond to technological and market developments, including other products that may compete with one or more of our product candidates; 28 • the costs of acquiring, licensing or investing in intellectual property rights, products, product candidates and businesses; • the costs of maintaining, expanding and protecting our intellectual property portfolio; • our ability to attract, hire and retain qualified personnel as we expand research and development and our operational and commercial infrastructure; and • the costs of operating as a public company in the United States and maintaining a listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. For example, market volatility resulting from, among other factors, military conflicts and related sanctions, such as ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, as well as Russia’s war in Ukraine, or other unknown factors could also adversely impact our ability to access funds as and when needed. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit or discontinue one or more research or development programs or the potential commercialization of any approved products or be unable to expand operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic combination with Beckley Psytech. The success of our strategic combination with Beckley Psytech will depend on, among other things, the combined group’s ability to integrate atai’s and Beckley Psytech’s businesses in a manner that realizes anticipated synergies and benefits and meets or exceeds the forecasted stand‑alone cost savings anticipated by the combined group. Over time, the Company anticipates that the combined group will benefit from significant synergies, based on, among other things, increased scale. If the combined group is not able to successfully achieve these synergies, or the cost to achieve these synergies is greater than expected, then the anticipated benefits of the strategic combination may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected. The success of the strategic combination will also depend on the ability of the product candidates to achieve anticipated clinical, regulatory and commercial outcomes. Clinical trials are inherently uncertain, and preliminary or early-stage results may not be predictive of final outcomes or lead to regulatory approval. Furthermore, even if regulatory approval is obtained, the combined group may face significant commercialization challenges or encounter competition sooner than expected. If Beckley Psytech’s product candidates do not demonstrate safety or efficacy in later-stage trials, fail to receive regulatory approvals, encounter intellectual property challenges or face unforeseen commercial or competitive obstacles, the combined group may not realize the expected benefits of the strategic combination. Raising additional capital, such as through future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to current product candidates or to any future product candidates on unfavorable terms. Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our planned operations. In order to accomplish our business objectives and develop our product candidate pipeline, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public and private equity or debt financings, sales of assets or programs, and other sources, such as strategic collaborations or license and development agreements. Because any decision by us to issue debt or equity securities in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any future financing transactions. Our board has the authority to authorize certain offers and sales of additional securities without the vote of, or prior notice to, stockholders. Based on the need for additional capital to fund expected expenditures and growth, it is likely that we will issue additional securities to provide such capital. In February 2025, under the shelf registration statement on Form S-3 of ATAI Life Sciences N.V. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-265970) with the SEC, declared effective on July 11, 2022, (the “Shelf Registration Statement”) and a prospectus supplement filed on February 13, 2025, we issued and sold 26,190,477 common stock in an underwritten offering. The common stock was sold at a public offering price of $2.10 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. We received aggregate net proceeds of $51.9 million. In connection with the underwritten public offering, we granted Berenberg Capital Markets LLC (the “Underwriter”) an option exercisable for 30 days to purchase up to an additional 3,928,571 common stock from us at the public offering price of $2.10 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The Underwriter exercised its option to purchase all additional shares February 19, 2025, and we received $7.8 million. As a result of this offering, our shareholders experienced significant dilution. In October 2025, under the Shelf Registration Statement and a prospectus supplement filed on October 16, 2025, we issued and sold 23,725,000 common shares in an underwritten offering. The common shares were sold at a public offering price of $5.48 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. We received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $121.7 million. In connection with the underwritten public offering, we granted underwriters an option exercisable for 30 days to purchase up to an additional 3,558,750 common shares from us at the public offering price of $5.48 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The Underwriter exercised its option to purchase all additional shares on February 19, 2025, and we received $18.2 million. In November 2022, the Company entered into an Open Market Sale Agreement SM , or Sales Agreement, with Jefferies LLC (“Jefferies”), pursuant to which the Company may issue and sell its common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $150.0 million, from time to time through an “at the market” equity offering program under which Jefferies will act as sales agent. Such additional issuances may involve the issuance of a significant number of common stock at prices less than the current market price for the common stock. We have also filed a registration 29 statement on Form S-8 registering the issuance of common stock issued or reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans. Shares registered under this registration statement on Form S-8 can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and once vested, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. In addition, certain of our executive officers, employees and affiliates have established or may in the future establish programmed selling plans under Rule 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act, for the purpose of effecting sales of our common stock. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, shareholder ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our existing shareholders. In addition, the possibility of such issuance may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. The incurrence of additional indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations and liens on our assets, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights, and other operating and financing restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Additionally, any future collaborations we enter into with third parties may provide capital in the near term, but limit our potential cash flow and revenue in the future. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses or other rights on unfavorable terms. Pursuant to our 2021 Incentive Award Plan (“2021 Incentive Plan”) we are authorized to grant various stock-based awards to our executive officers, directors, employees and consultants. If our board elects in the future to increase the number of shares available for future grant and, in the case of the 2021 Incentive Plan, if our shareholders approve of any such further increase to the overall share limit, our shareholders may experience additional dilution, and our share price may fall. The failure to successfully integrate the businesses and operations of atai and Beckley Psytech in the expected time frame may adversely affect the combined group’s future results. atai and Beckley Psytech previously have operated independently, and their respective businesses may not be integrated successfully. It is possible that the integration process could result in the loss of suppliers, vendors, landlords, joint venture partners or other business partners, the disruption of either company’s or both companies’ ongoing businesses, inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies, potential unknown liabilities and unforeseen expenses or delays associated with and following completion of the strategic combination or higher than expected integration costs and an overall post‑completion integration process that takes longer than originally anticipated. Our overall value may be dominated by a single or limited number of our clinical programs. A large proportion of our overall value may at any time reside in a small proportion of our clinical programs. Accordingly, there is a risk that if one or more of the intellectual property or commercial rights relevant to a given clinical program were impaired or impeded, this would have a material adverse impact on our overall value. Furthermore, a large proportion of our overall revenue may at any time be the subject of one, or a small number of, licensed technologies. Should the relevant licenses be terminated or expire this would be likely to have a material adverse effect on the revenue received by us. If we obtain a controlling interest in certain of our existing companies or additional companies in the future, it could adversely affect our operating results and the value of our common stock, thereby disrupting our business. As part of our strategy, we have and intend to continue to invest in companies that further or complement our strategy and help accomplish our business objectives, which we assess on an ongoing basis. We have also acquired and in-licensed certain of our technologies from third parties, and we may in the future acquire, in-license or invest in additional technology that we believe would be beneficial to our business. Investments in our existing and any future subsidiaries and other companies and the acquisition, in-license or investments in technology involve numerous risks, including, but not limited to: • risk of conducting research and development activities in new and innovative therapeutic areas or treatment modalities in which we have little to no experience; • diversion of financial and managerial resources from existing operations; • successfully negotiating a proposed acquisition, joint venture, in-license or investment in a timely manner and at a price or on terms and conditions favorable to us; • successfully combining and integrating a potential acquisition into our existing business to fully realize the benefits of such acquisition; and • the impact of regulatory reviews and outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted with respect to a proposed acquisition, in-license or investment. If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such 30 acquisition, investment or transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, we might delay, limit or otherwise discontinue a program based on our ongoing assessment of our programs, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities, any of which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our programs are difficult to value given they are in the development stage. Investments in early-stage companies, such as ours, are inherently difficult to value since sales, cash flow and tangible asset values are very limited, which makes the valuation highly dependent on expectations of future development, and any significant future revenues, if they arise, would only arise in the medium to longer term and are uncertain. Similarly, investments in companies that are in the development stage, such as ours, are also difficult to value since sales, cash flow and tangible assets are limited, and valuations are still dependent on expectations of future development. For example, we utilize the equity method to account for certain of our atai noncontrolled entities, and we evaluate each of these investments at the end of each reporting period. We present income/losses from equity investments and any impairment related to equity method investments as losses from investments in equity method investees on our consolidated statements of operations, and these evaluations could result in a material impact on our financial statements and results of operations. There can be no guarantee that our valuations of our programs will be considered to be correct in light of the early stage of development for many of these entities and their future performance. As a result, we may not realize the full value of our ownership in such subsidiaries, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Our product candidates represent novel and innovative potential therapeutic areas, and negative perception of any product candidate that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, obtain regulatory approvals or identify alternate regulatory pathways to market for such product candidate. Our product candidates represent novel and innovative potential therapeutic areas, including substances that might be controversial, overlooked or underused. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of mental health disorders, including depression, substance use disorder, anxiety disorder and other neurological indications targeted by our product candidates, prescribing potential treatments that involve the use of our product candidates, if approved, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Our product candidates may not be successful in gaining physician acceptance, which would adversely impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates, even if approved. Access will also depend on consumer acceptance and adoption of products that are commercialized. In addition, responses by U.S. federal and state governments or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any of our product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, identify alternate regulatory pathways to market or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. We may not achieve our publicly announced milestones according to schedule, or at all. From time to time, we may announce the timing of certain events that we expect to occur, such as the anticipated timing of results from our clinical trials. These statements are forward-looking and are based on the best estimates of management at the time relating to the occurrence of such events. However, the actual timing of such events may differ from what has been publicly disclosed. For example, we had previously announced that Phase 2a topline results of BPL-003 in the treatment of alcohol use disorder would be expected in 2024, but ultimately those results were announced in January of 2025. The timing of events such as initiation or completion of a clinical trial, filing of an application to obtain regulatory approval, or announcement of additional clinical trials for a product candidate may ultimately vary from what is publicly disclosed. These variations in timing may occur because of different events, including the nature of the results obtained during a clinical trial or during a research phase, timing of the completion of clinical trials, or any other event having the effect of delaying the publicly announced timeline. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information or statements, whether because of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law. Any variation in the timing of previously announced milestones could have a material adverse effect on our business plan, financial condition or operating results and the trading price of our common stock. Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition. Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets and cash flows are and will continue to be influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar and the euro. Our reporting currency and our functional currency is primarily the U.S. dollar, but many of our operating expenses are paid in euro. We also regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in euros, and potential future revenue may be earned in euros. As a result, our business and the price of our common stock may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the euro, which may also have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place. 31 We may use our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term securities, to purchase digital currencies, including bitcoin, the price of which has been, and will likely continue to be, highly volatile. We may use our cash, cash equivalents and short-term securities to purchase bitcoin. Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset that has traded below $70,000 per bitcoin and above $120,000 per bitcoin in the 12 months preceding the date of this annual report on Form 10-K. In addition, bitcoin does not pay interest or other returns and so the ability to generate a return on investment in bitcoin will largely depend on whether there is appreciation in the market price of bitcoin following our purchases of bitcoin. Purchasing bitcoin exposes us to various risks, including the following: • Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of bitcoin may influence our financial results and the market price of our common stock; • bitcoin and other digital assets are novel assets, and are subject to significant legal, commercial, regulatory and technical uncertainty; • our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to bitcoin holdings; • due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of many bitcoin trading venues, bitcoin trading venues may experience greater fraud, security failures or regulatory or operational problems than trading venues for more established asset classes, which may result in a loss of confidence in bitcoin trading venues and adversely affect the value of the bitcoin we own; • the emergence or growth of other digital assets, including those with significant private or public sector backing, could have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin and adversely affect our business; • bitcoin holdings are less liquid than our existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents; • if we or our third-party service providers experience a security breach or cyberattack and unauthorized parties obtain access to our bitcoin, or if our private keys are lost or destroyed, or other similar circumstances or events occur, we may lose some or all of our bitcoin and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected; • we may face risks relating to the custody of bitcoin, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our bitcoin and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our bitcoin; and • regulatory change reclassifying bitcoin as a security could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and the market price of our common stock. Risks Related to the Clinical Development, Regulatory Review and Approval of our Product Candidates. Our product candidates are in clinical (or preclinical) development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will be successfully developed and/or receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive preclinical and clinical testing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Such testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the development process. To date, we have focused substantially all our efforts and financial resources on identifying, acquiring, and developing product candidates, including conducting lead optimization, non-clinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials and providing general and administrative support for these operations. Some of our product candidates are in the preclinical stage, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support the planned INDs in the United States or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept the proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of preclinical studies will ultimately support the further development of the programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our clinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin. Moreover, the results of preclinical studies may not be predictive of the results of clinical trials, and the results of any early-stage clinical trials we commence may not be predictive of the results of the later-stage clinical trials. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials in one indication, or from preclinical studies or clinical trials that we did not lead, may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient 32 populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocol details. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, and any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market and sell these product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. In addition, clinical trial design for some of our product candidates can be complex given their characteristics and issues associated with functional unblinding/disappointment effect. We also anticipate two independent, adequate, randomized, double blind and well-controlled pivotal trials in the patient populations will be necessary to support market approvals for all product candidates. Due to the substantial responses typically seen in the patient populations studied, placebo/control groups will be necessary to include to ensure that observed effects are not the result of spontaneous improvement, expectation bias, attention from health care professionals involved in the trial, regression to the mean, or other factors not related to the activity of the study drug. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in another jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials. Our inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us and negatively impact our ability to obtain approval and to generate revenue. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize product candidates. We currently have no products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue, and we may never be able to develop or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA 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. All of our product candidates require additional development, management of preclinical, clinical and manufacturing activities and regulatory approval. In addition, we will need to obtain adequate manufacturing supply, build a commercial organization, commence marketing efforts and obtain reimbursement before they generate any significant revenue from commercial product sales, if ever. In addition, while our new program selection criteria include prior evidence in humans and we believe the product candidates we have selected have the potential for a favorable safety profile based on third-party trials and studies, many of our product candidates are in early-stage research phases of development, and the risk of failure for these programs is high. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue operations, which may result in dissolution, out-licensing the technology or pursuing an alternative strategy. In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has recently evolved. The CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as contract research organizations, or CROs, may impact our developments plans. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. 33 Clinical trials of our product candidates may be delayed, and certain programs may never advance in the clinic or may be more costly to conduct than we anticipate, any of which can affect our ability to fund our operations and would have a material adverse impact on our platform or our business. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any of our planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include: • inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology, or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation or continuation of clinical trials; • delays in confirming target engagement, patient selection or other relevant biomarkers (with respect to certain of our clinical trials) to be utilized in preclinical and clinical product candidate development; • delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites; • delays in identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators; • delays in obtaining required IRB or ethics committees' approval at each clinical trial site; • imposition of a temporary or permanent clinical hold by regulatory agencies for a number of reasons, including after review of an IND or amendment, CTA, or amendment, investigational device exemption (“IDE”) or supplement, or equivalent application or amendment; as a result of a new safety finding that presents unreasonable risk to clinical trial participants; or a negative finding from an inspection of our clinical trial operations or study sites; • developments in trials for other product candidates with the same targets or related modalities as our product candidates conducted by competitors that raise regulatory or safety concerns about risk to patients of the treatment, or if the FDA or any other regulatory authority finds that the investigational protocol or plan is clearly deficient to meet its stated objectives; • difficulties in securing access to materials for the comparator arm of certain of our clinical trials; • delays in identifying, recruiting and enrolling suitable patients to participate in clinical trials, and delays caused by patients withdrawing from clinical trials or failing to return for post-treatment follow-up; • difficulties in finding a sufficient number of trial sites, or trial sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial; • difficulty collaborating with patient groups and investigators; • failure by CROs, other third parties, or us to adhere to clinical trial requirements; • failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s or any other regulatory authority’s GCPs or regulatory guidelines in other countries, including deficiencies in the manufacturing process, test procedures and specifications or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from non-clinical studies or clinical trials; • occurrence of AEs undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics 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 trials of any product candidates that we may identify and pursue being greater than we anticipate; • clinical trials of any product candidates that we may identify and pursue producing negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or regulators requiring us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs; • transfer of manufacturing processes to larger-scale facilities operated by a CMO and delays or failures by our CMOs or us to make any necessary changes to such manufacturing process; and 34 • delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of product candidates that we may identify for use in clinical trials or the inability to do any of the foregoing. Any inability to successfully initiate or complete clinical trials 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 may be required to, or we may elect to, conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from the modified product candidates to data obtained from preclinical and clinical research conducted using earlier versions. Clinical trial 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 product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the data safety monitoring board or by the FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial 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, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In the event we identify any additional product candidates to pursue, we cannot be sure that submission of an IDE, IND, CTA or equivalent application, as applicable, will result in the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authority allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Our current product candidates and future product candidates may be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations in the territories where the product will be marketed, such as the United States and Europe, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations, or the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations, may adversely affect the results of our business operations, both during clinical development and post approval, and our financial condition. Some of our product candidates are regulated by the DEA as “Controlled Substances” or scheduled substances, under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, also known as the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The DEA regulates compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently “accepted medical use” in the United States, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision and may not be prescribed, marketed or sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the United States may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule I and II drugs are subject to the strictest controls under the CSA, including manufacturing and procurement quotas, security requirements and criteria for importation. In addition, dispensing of Schedule II drugs is further restricted. Commercial marketing in the United States will also require scheduling-related legislative or administrative action. Scheduling determinations by the DEA are dependent on FDA approval of a substance or a specific formulation of a substance. This scheduling determination will be dependent on FDA approval and the FDA’s recommendation as to the appropriate schedule. During the review process, and prior to approval, the FDA may determine that it requires additional data, either from non-clinical or clinical studies, including with respect to whether, or to what extent, the substance has abuse potential. This may introduce a delay into the approval and any potential rescheduling process. That delay would be dependent on the quantity of additional data required by the FDA. This scheduling determination will require the DEA to conduct notice and comment rule making, including issuing an interim final rule. Such action will be subject to public comment and requests for hearing, which could affect the scheduling of these substances. There can be no assurance that the DEA will make a favorable scheduling decision. Even assuming categorization as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance (i.e., Schedule III, IV or V), at the federal level, such substances would also require scheduling determinations under state laws and regulations. If approved by the FDA, and if any of our product candidates is listed by the DEA as a Schedule II, III, IV or V controlled substance, their manufacture, importation, exportation, domestic distribution, storage, and sale and legitimate use will continue to be subject to a significant degree of regulation by the DEA. In addition, the scheduling process may take significantly longer than the 90-day deadline set forth in the CSA, thereby delaying the launch of our product candidates in the United States. Furthermore, the FDA, DEA or any foreign regulatory authority could require us to generate more clinical or other data than we currently anticipate to establish whether or to what extent the substance has an abuse potential, which could increase the cost and/or delay the launch of our product candidates and any future product candidates containing controlled substances. In addition, product candidates containing controlled substances are subject to DEA regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, including: • DEA registration and inspection of facilities . Facilities conducting research, manufacturing, distributing, importing or exporting, or dispensing controlled substances must be registered (licensed) to perform these activities and have the security, control, 35 recordkeeping, reporting and inventory mechanisms required by the DEA to prevent drug loss and diversion. All these facilities must renew their registrations annually, except dispensing facilities, which must renew every three years. The DEA conducts periodic inspections of certain registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Obtaining and maintaining the necessary registrations may result in delay of the importation, manufacturing or distribution of our product candidates. Furthermore, failure to maintain compliance with the CSA, particularly non-compliance resulting in loss or diversion, can result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to restrict, suspend or revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. • State-controlled substances laws . Individual U.S. states have also established controlled substance laws and regulations. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule our product candidates. While some states automatically schedule a drug based on federal action, other states schedule drugs through rule making or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval, and adverse scheduling could have a material adverse effect on the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our collaborators must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to obtain, handle and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law. • Clinical trials . Our research sites must submit a research protocol to the DEA and obtain and maintain a DEA researcher registration that will allow those sites to handle and dispense our product candidates and to obtain the product from our importer. If the DEA delays or denies the grant of a researcher registration to one or more research sites, the clinical trial could be significantly delayed, and we could lose clinical trial sites. The importer for the clinical trials must also obtain a Schedule I importer registration and an import permit for each import. • Importation . If our product candidates are approved and classified as a Schedule II, III or IV substance, an importer can import them for commercial purposes if it obtains an importer registration and files an application for an import permit for each import. The DEA provides annual assessments/estimates to the International Narcotics Control Board, which guides the DEA in the amounts of controlled substances that the DEA authorizes to be imported. The failure to identify an importer or obtain the necessary import authority, including specific quantities, could affect the availability of our product candidates and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, an application for a Schedule II importer registration must be published in the Federal Register, and there is a waiting period for third-party comments to be submitted. It is always possible that adverse comments may delay the grant of an importer registration. If our product candidates are approved and classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, federal law may prohibit the import of the substance for commercial purposes. If our product candidates are listed as a Schedule II substance, we will not be allowed to import the drug for commercial purposes unless the DEA determines that domestic supplies are inadequate or there is inadequate domestic competition among domestic manufacturers for the substance as defined by the DEA. Moreover, Schedule I controlled substances have never been registered with the DEA for importation for commercial purposes, only for scientific and research needs. Therefore, if neither our product candidates nor our drug substances could be imported, the product candidates would have to be wholly manufactured in the United States, and we would need to secure a manufacturer that would be required to obtain and maintain a separate DEA registration for that activity. • Manufacture in the United States . If, because of a Schedule II classification or voluntarily, we were to conduct manufacturing or repackaging/relabeling in the United States, our contract manufacturers would be subject to the DEA’s annual manufacturing and procurement quota requirements. The annual quota allocated to us or our contract manufacturers for the active ingredient in our product candidates may not be sufficient to complete clinical trials or meet commercial demand. Consequently, any delay or refusal by the DEA in establishing our, or our contract manufacturers’, procurement and/or production quota for controlled substances could delay or stop our clinical trials or product launches, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations. • Distribution in the United States . If our product candidates are scheduled as Schedule II, III or IV, we would also need to identify wholesale distributors with the appropriate DEA registrations and authority to distribute our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates. These distributors would need to obtain Schedule II, III or IV distribution registrations. This limitation in the ability to distribute our product candidates more broadly may limit commercial uptake and could negatively impact our prospects. The failure to obtain, or delay in obtaining, or the loss of any of those registrations could result in increased costs to us. If our product candidates are a Schedule II drug, participants in our supply chain may have to maintain enhanced security with alarms and monitoring systems and they may be required to adhere to recordkeeping and inventory requirements. This may discourage some pharmacies from carrying the product. In addition, our product candidates will likely be determined to have a high potential for abuse and therefore required to be administered at our trial sites, which could limit commercial updates. Furthermore, state and federal enforcement actions, regulatory requirements and legislation intended to reduce prescription drug 36 abuse, such as the requirement that physicians consult a state prescription drug monitoring program, may make physicians less willing to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, Schedule II products. The EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the UN Conventions codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence. The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. The obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are implemented at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another. In order to develop and commercialize our products in the EU, we need to comply with the national requirements related to controlled substances which is costly and may affect our development plans in the EU. Our product candidates contain psychedelic substances, the use of which may generate public controversy. Adverse publicity or public perception regarding our current or future product candidates may negatively influence the success of these therapies. Our product candidates contain psychedelic substances that may generate public controversy. Political and social pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in approval of, and increased expenses for our current product candidates and any future product candidates we may develop. Opponents of these compounds may seek restrictions on marketing and withdrawal of any regulatory approvals. In addition, these opponents may seek to generate negative publicity in an effort to persuade the medical community to reject these products, if approved. Adverse publicity from misuse of psychedelics, whether or not tied to our product candidates, may adversely affect the commercial success or market penetration achievable by our product candidates. Anti-psychedelic protests have historically occurred and may occur in the future and generate media coverage. Political pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in, and increased expenses for, and limit or restrict the introduction and marketing of, our product candidates or any future therapeutic candidates. If our product candidates or any future therapeutic candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of the safety and quality of our product candidates. We may face limited adoption if third-party therapy sites, therapists or patients are unwilling to try such a novel treatment given that some of our product candidates are from substances that might be controversial, overlooked or underused. There has been a history of negative media coverage regarding psychedelic substances, including compounds in many of our product candidates, which may affect the public’s perception of our product candidates. In addition, compounds in most of our product candidates may elicit intense psychological experiences, and this could deter patients from choosing this course of treatment, if our product candidates were approved. Our business could be adversely affected if we were subject to negative publicity or if any of our product candidates, if approved, or any similar product candidates distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Because of our dependence upon consumer perception, any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of any of our product candidates, if approved or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Future adverse events in research into depression and other mental health disorders, such as substance use disorder and anxiety, on which we focus our research efforts, or the pharmaceutical industry more generally, could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our product candidates. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates or any future product candidates. Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the potential commercialization of our product candidates. Any product candidates we may develop, and the activities associated with their development and potential commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Failure to obtain marketing authorization for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We expect to rely on assistance from third-party CROs or regulatory consultants to assist us in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing authorizations. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy, or with respect to biological products in the U.S., the product candidate’s safety, purity and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use, if approved. 37 The process of obtaining marketing authorizations, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing authorization policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. If we experience delays in obtaining approval, or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired. Research and development of drugs targeting CNS is particularly difficult, and it can be difficult to predict and understand why a drug has a positive effect on some patients but not others, which may reduce the likelihood our product candidates are ultimately approved and therefore may have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Discovery and development of new drug candidates designed to target CNS disorders are particularly difficult and time-consuming, evidenced by the higher failure rate for new drugs for CNS disorders compared with most other areas of drug discovery. For example, in 2019, both Rapastinel and SAGE-217, two third-party developed drug candidates designed to target MDD failed to meet their primary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical trials. The New Drug Application, or NDA, submitted by Alkermes for ALKS 5461, another drug candidate under development for MDD, was not approved by the FDA in 2019 because the FDA reportedly required additional clinical data to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness beyond the Phase 3 clinical trials that had already been conducted. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could decrease the likelihood our product candidates are approved and may ultimately have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. In addition, our later-stage clinical trials may present challenges related to conducting adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, particularly as it regards managing placebo effects. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. Identifying and qualifying trial participants to participate in clinical studies is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends, among other things, on the speed at which we can recruit trial participants to participate in testing our product candidates and our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. Delays in enrollment and withdrawals from the trial may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates. If trial participants are unwilling to participate in our studies because of negative publicity from adverse events in our trials or other trials of similar products, or those related to specific therapeutic area, or for other reasons, including competitive clinical studies for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting trial participants, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidate development, delays in testing the effectiveness of these product candidates, or termination of the clinical studies altogether. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of trial participants, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a study, to complete our clinical studies in a timely manner. Patient and subject enrollment is affected by factors including: • the size and nature of a patient population; • the patient eligibility criteria defined in the applicable clinical trial protocols, which may limit the patient populations eligible for clinical trials to a greater extent than competing clinical trials for the same indication; • the size of the study population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints; • the severity of the disorder under investigation; • the proximity of patients to a trial site; • the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the trial in question; • the design of the trial protocol; • the ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; • the approval or concurrent enrollment of clinical trials involving competing product candidates currently under development or competing clinical trials for similar product candidates or targeting patient populations meeting our patient eligibility criteria; 38 • the availability and efficacy of approved medications or product candidates for the disorder or condition under investigation; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and side effects of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available product candidates and product candidates; • the ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; and • the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will not complete such trials, for any reason. Additionally, our or our collaborators’ ability to successfully initiate, enroll and conduct a clinical trial outside the United States is subject to numerous additional risks, including: • difficulty in establishing or managing relationships with CROs and physicians; • differing standards for the conduct of clinical trials; • differing standards of care for patients with a particular disorder; • an inability to locate qualified local consultants, physicians and partners; and • the potential burden of complying with a variety of foreign laws, medical standards and regulatory requirements, including the regulation of pharmaceutical and biotechnology products and treatments. If we have difficulty enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to conduct clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay or terminate clinical trials, either of which would have an adverse effect on our business. Use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects, adverse events or other properties or safety risks, which could delay or halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, cause us to abandon a product candidate, limit their commercial potential, if approved, or result in other significant negative consequences that could severely harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be unexpected or undesirable side effects, AEs and other risks associated with the use of our product candidates. For instance, there have been fatalities associated with the use of ibogaine including in third-party clinical trials, potentially due in part to the inappropriate management of cardiovascular risks, inadequate cardiac monitoring and drug product of unknown purity and concentration. Results of clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by these 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 approval by the FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The side effects related to the product candidate could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Moreover, if our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate if approved. We may also be required to modify or terminate our study plans based on findings in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. Many product candidates that initially show promise in early-stage testing may later be found to cause side effects that prevent further development. As we work to advance existing product candidates and to identify new product candidates, we cannot be certain that later testing or trials of product candidates that initially showed promise in early testing will not be found to cause similar or different unacceptable side effects that prevent their further development. It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as the use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other AEs that were not observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, may be reported by subjects. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or biotechnology products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory oversight bodies to suspend or terminate our clinical trials or to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. In addition to side effects caused by the product candidate, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If any such AEs occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that any AEs were caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, a product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we can demonstrate that all future 39 serious adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Additionally, if any of our product candidates receive marketing authorization, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could impose contraindications or a boxed warning in the labeling of the product. For any of our drug product candidates receiving marketing authorization, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could require us to adopt a REMS or similar risk management measures and could apply elements to assure safe use to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a Medication Guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates if approved, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: • regulatory authorities may suspend or withdraw approvals of such product candidate, or seek an injunction against its manufacture or distribution; • regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label, including “boxed” warnings, or issue safety alerts, Deal Healthcare Provider letters, press releases or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; • we may be required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to implement a REMS or similar risk management measures; • we may be required to change the way a product candidate is administered or conduct additional clinical trials; • we may be subject to fines, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; • we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and • our reputation may suffer. Any of these occurrences could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Even if any of our current or future product candidates receive regulatory approval, any such product candidates may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, in which case we may not generate significant revenues or become profitable. We have never commercialized a product, and even if any of our current or future product candidates are approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities for marketing and sale, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Physicians may be reluctant to take their patients off their current medications and switch their treatment regimen. Further, patients often acclimate to the treatment regime that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch due to lack of coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, even if we are able to demonstrate our product candidates’ safety and efficacy to the FDA and other regulators, safety or efficacy concerns in the medical community may hinder market acceptance. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources, including management time and financial resources, and may not be successful. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: • the efficacy and safety of the product as demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials; • the potential and perceived advantages of the product compared to competitive and alternative products; • the prevalence and severity of any side effects; • whether the product is designated under physician treatment guidelines as a first-, second- or third-line therapy; • our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to offer the product for sale at competitive prices; • the product’s convenience and ease of dosing and administration compared to alternative treatments, including the need to have products administered in clinical settings, rather than the home, for patients who are prescribed the products; • the willingness of the target patient population to try, and of physicians to prescribe, the product; • limitations or warnings, including distribution or use restrictions contained in the product’s approved labeling; 40 • the strength of sales, marketing and distribution support; • restrictions on how the product is distributed; • the timing of market introduction of competitive products; • publicity concerning these products or competing products and treatments; • changes in the standard of care for the targeted indications for the product; and • availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement from government payors, managed care plans and other third-party payors. Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that any of our products is safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, they may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable. For any of our current or future product candidates that obtains regulatory approval, any failure to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our business prospects. In addition, for any approved product, any negative perception of such product once commercialized, or of a similar product developed by a competitor, may adversely affect our reputation in the marketplace or among industry participants and our business prospects. We currently, and may in the future continue to, conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials. We currently, and may in the future continue to, conduct one or more clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, if the applicable clinical trial was not otherwise subject to an IND, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates that we may identify and develop, our business will be substantially harmed. We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of preclinical or clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, and it is possible that our current product candidates and any other product candidates that we may seek to develop in the future will not ever obtain regulatory approval. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized, even if they receive regulatory approval. Obtaining marketing approval is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including but not limited to: 41 • the inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that the applicable product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for our targeted indications or otherwise meets the applicable regulatory standards for approval; • the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design, endpoints or implementation of our clinical trials; • the population studied in the clinical program may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure safety or efficacy in the full population for which we seek approval; • the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate; • the FDA, the 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 product candidates that we may identify and pursue may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission for regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere; • we may be unable to demonstrate to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate’s risk-benefit ratio for its proposed indication is acceptable; • the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may identify deficiencies in the manufacturing processes, test procedures and specifications, or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and • the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change in a manner that renders the clinical trial design or data insufficient for approval. The approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials and evolving regulatory requirements, may result in our failure to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates that we may pursue in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, approval by the FDA in the United States, if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. In addition, FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation has been undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed changes were since discussed and negotiated by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU as part of the EU ordinary legislative process. A provisional agreement has been reached by the European Parliament and Council of the EU on the proposed revisions on December 11, 2025. The proposed revisions (affecting the duration of regulatory data protection and market protection, including for orphan medicinal products, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) remain to be formally adopted by the two institutions, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The proposed changes are not expected to enter into application before 2028 and may however have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term. Interim, “top-line,” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available or as additional analyses are conducted, and as the data are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our clinical trials or from clinical trials conducted by companies that we invest in, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data has been received and fully evaluated. Top-line and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. 42 From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from these trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as subject enrollment continues and more data becomes available. Adverse differences between interim data and top-line, preliminary, or final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, top-line, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. Certain of the product candidates we are developing are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business. The manufacturing processes our CMOs use to produce our product candidates are complex, and materials are challenging to source. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including an inability to develop efficient manufacturing processes, equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, supply chain disruptions, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers, including acquisition of the supplier by a third-party or declaration of bankruptcy. Our CMOs must employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process is reproducible and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory to conduct clinical trials or supply commercial markets. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We or our CMOs also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our or our CMOs’ manufacturing process or facilities could result in delays in planned clinical trials and increased costs, and could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our or our CMOs’ manufacturing process could restrict our or their ability to meet potential future market demand for products, if approved. We may not elect or be able to take advantage of any expedited development or regulatory review and approval processes available to drug product candidates granted breakthrough therapy or fast track designation by the FDA or similar EMA expedited pathways. We intend to evaluate and continue ongoing discussions with the FDA on regulatory strategies that could enable us to take advantage of expedited development pathways for certain of our product candidates in the future, although we cannot be certain that our product candidates will qualify for any designations that regulatory authorities will grant, or allow us to maintain, the relevant qualifying designations. Potential expedited FDA development and review programs that we could pursue include breakthrough therapy and fast track designation. Drug candidates 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. The sponsor of a fast track-designated product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may also designate a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial 43 treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all the fast track designation features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. In October 2025, BPL-003 received breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with treatment-resistant depression. We cannot assure you that the FDA will grant breakthrough or fast track designation for our product candidates, even if requested. Breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation do not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that even where we have received such designations, they will result in any expedited review or approval or that any approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the applicable designation. Therefore, even if we receive breakthrough therapy or fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw breakthrough therapy or fast track designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. Our business may be harmed if we are unable to avail ourselves of these or any other expedited development and regulatory programs. We may seek EMA PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) designation or other designations, schemes or tools for one or more of our product candidates, which we may not receive. In the EU, innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur before submission of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process. Even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for PRIME, the EMA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The EMA PRIME scheme or other schemes, designations, or tools, even if obtained or used for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional procedures and do not assure ultimate approval. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates is eligible to the PRIME scheme, the EMA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for review or approval will not be shortened. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation may be eligible for accelerated assessment (in 150 days instead of 210 days), which may be granted for medicinal products of major interest from a public health perspective or that target an unmet medical need, but this is not guaranteed. Such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and do not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing authorization. For any approved product, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, which may adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations. If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP and similar regulations. As such, we and our CMOs will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and similar requirements and adherence to commitments made in any NDA or MAA or equivalent application. We and our CMOs are also subject to numerous other requirements pertaining to the registration of our and their manufacturing facilities and the listing of our product and product candidates with the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including with respect to manufacturing, production and quality control. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance. Additionally, under FDA regulations, certain of our product candidates that we expect to be regulated as combination products are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality System Regulation applicable to medical devices, which may delay or prevent approval, or prohibit or suspend marketing of our products in certain jurisdictions. Similar requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions and for instance, in the EU, where medical devices are highly regulated. Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates may contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, such as additional clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of a drug product. We are required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new 44 legislation addressing drug or medical safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization or increased costs to assure compliance. The FDA and other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, and for certain products, the Federal Trade Commission, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. We are, and will be, required to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our product candidates, if approved. For example, promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs and medical devices are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s label or labeling. Accordingly, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. The holder of an approved NDA, MAA or equivalent marketing authorization must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. Delays in obtaining required approvals would harm our ability to introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, which in turn would harm our or our future growth. Failure to submit a new or supplemental application and to obtain approval for certain changes prior to marketing the modified product may require a recall or to stop selling or distributing the marketed product as modified and may lead to significant enforcement actions. We could also be required to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things: • issue warning letters or untitled letters; • impose civil or criminal penalties; • suspend, withdraw or modify regulatory approvals; • suspend or modify any of our ongoing clinical trials; • refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us; • mandate modifications to promotional materials or require us to provide corrective information to healthcare practitioners, or require other restrictions on the labeling or marketing of such products; • impose restrictions on our operations, including closing our programs’ or our or their CMOs’ facilities; • seize or detain products, refuse to permit the import or export of products; or • require a product recall. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of any product candidates we develop. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, if approved. In particular, while the FDA and other regulatory agencies permit the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information about an approved product, a manufacturer may not promote a product for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct must be changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if 45 approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Risks Related to Commercialization If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any product candidates we may develop, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into these arrangements even if the intent is to do so. There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include: • the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future approved products; • the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement, and other acceptance by payors; • the inability to price products at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability; • restricted or closed distribution channels that make it difficult to distribute our products to segments of the patient population; • the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and • unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent commercialization organization. If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and/or distribution services, the profitability of any product revenue we receive may be lower than if we were to market, sell, provide commercial support for and/or provide distribution services for any products developed by us. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if approved. The availability of adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs is uncertain, and failure to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers could impede our ability to market any future products we may develop and could limit our ability to generate revenue. There is significant uncertainty related to the third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drugs. The commercial success of our future products in both domestic and international markets depends on whether such third-party coverage and reimbursement is available for our product candidates. Governmental payers, health maintenance organization, managed care, pharmacy benefit and other third-party payers are increasingly attempting to manage their healthcare expenditures by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, which is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments. These payers may not view our future products as cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available to our customers, may not be sufficient to allow our future products to be marketed on a competitive basis and will impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Government authorities and third-party payers are exerting increasing influence and control on costs, known as cost containment, on their decisions regarding the use of, and coverage and reimbursement levels for, particular medications and treatments. In particular, third-party payers may limit the covered 46 indications. This trend in cost-control initiatives in the United States and other countries could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for products, and monitor and control company profits, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues. If the prices for our drug candidates decrease or if governmental and other third-party payers do not provide adequate coverage or reimbursement, our prospects for revenue and profitability will suffer. If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to government or other third-party payers, certain healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation by governments and regulators where we conduct our business. The regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, without limitation: • the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them in order to have committed a violation; • Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false claims, or knowingly using false statements to obtain payment from the federal government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act; • the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement, in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; • the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to payments and other “transfers of value” made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives), and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members • federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; • federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products; and • analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non- governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by the patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information, which requires tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Ensuring that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from U.S. government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, additional reporting requirements and 47 oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, the existence of these actions may adversely affect market prices of our common stock. The production and sale of our product candidates may be considered illegal or may otherwise be restricted due to the use of controlled substances, which may also have consequences for the legality of investments from foreign jurisdictions and therefore we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates in such jurisdictions, which will adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our product candidates contain controlled substances, including psychedelic substances, which are subject to strict legal requirements in certain jurisdictions where we will produce and intend to sell our products, if approved. Certain jurisdictions may not allow the use or production of the substances included in our product candidates, nor provide any possibilities for an exemption or regulatory approval that could allow for the lawful use or production of such substances. In addition, these jurisdictions may prohibit any form of contributing to the production or use of these drug candidates and may also directly or indirectly prohibit the receipt of any benefits following from the production and sale of these substances. Under certain circumstances, this may have consequences for the legality of the purchase of our shares or receipt of dividends in or from foreign jurisdictions. If certain foreign authorities consider it illegal to invest in our company, this will negatively affect the possibility to commercialize and generate revenue in the country of interest. Any investigations of authorities against foreign investors could generate negative publicity. We cannot predict the likelihood of foreign authorities to take such a point of view or take any actions against investors in certain jurisdictions. Actual or perceived failure to comply with health and data protection laws, regulations, and other obligations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity or reputational impacts, each of which could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and business. In connection with running our business, we receive, store, use and otherwise process information that relates to individuals and/or may constitute “personal data,” “personal information,” “individually identifiable health information,” “protected health information,” or similar terms under applicable data protection laws (collectively, “Personal Information”), including from and about actual or prospective clinical trial participants, patients, employees, and business contacts. We also depend on third party vendors in relation to the operation of our business, a number of which process Personal Information on our behalf. We, our vendors, and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, “HIPAA”), imposes, among other requirements, certain standards relating to privacy, security, and breach reporting for “protected health information.” HIPAA is applicable to healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services that involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting protected health information. While we do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and therefore are not directly regulated under HIPAA, we may obtain protected health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant penalties if we violate HIPAA. Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. For example, consumer health data protection laws in Washington and Nevada impose significant obligations on entities that collect “consumer health data,” and a failure to comply with these laws may result in enforcement actions or litigation. We may also be subject to other state and federal laws governing the privacy, processing, and protection of Personal Information. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, which requires covered businesses that process the Personal Information of California residents to, among other things: (i) provide certain disclosures to California residents regarding the business’s collection, use, and disclosure of their Personal Information; (ii) receive and respond to requests from California residents to access, delete, and correct their Personal Information, or to opt out of certain disclosures of their Personal Information; and (iii) enter into specific contractual provisions with service providers that process California resident Personal Information on the business’s behalf. Similar laws have been passed in other states and are continuing to be proposed at the state and federal level, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States Additionally, in 2024, the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a new rule—referred to as the “Data Security Program” (DSP)—to implement Executive Order 14117 aimed at preventing access to “bulk U.S. sensitive personal data” and “government-related data” by “countries of concern” (including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela) and “covered persons” (as all such terms are defined in the DSP). Effective as of April 8, 2025, and fully enforceable as of July 9, 2025, the DSP imposes stringent obligations on companies within its scope and prohibits or restricts “covered data transactions” that grant countries of concern or covered persons access to bulk U.S. sensitive personal data or any amount of government-related data. The DSP is new, complex and has yet to be enforced, and as such, there is a risk that our interpretation of its applicability, scope, and requirements is incorrect, incomplete, or misapplied. Compliance with the DSP may require us to invest heavily in data security and compliance measures, such as implementing 48 and complying with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s guidelines and other burdensome recordkeeping, reporting, and auditing requirements. It may also require us to implement new processes, stop or restrict certain data transfers, alter the geographic scope of our operations, cease doing business with certain third parties or using certain tools or vendors, or change how data flows throughout our business, any of which could materially impact our business operations or hinder our ability to grow our business. Finally, non-compliance with the DSP could result in significant civil or criminal penalties, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition. In Europe and the UK, we are subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and applicable national supplementing laws (“EU GDPR”) and to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 (“UK GDPR” and together with the EU GDPR, the “GDPR”). The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health data and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relate, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors and introducing a principal of accountability and the obligation to demonstrate compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit. In addition, some of the personal data we process in respect of clinical trial participants is special category or sensitive personal data under the GDPR, and subject to additional compliance obligations and to local law derogations. We may be subject to diverging requirements under EU member state laws and UK law, such as whether consent can be used as the legal basis for processing and the roles, responsibilities and liabilities as between clinical trial sites and sponsors. As these laws develop, we may need to make operational changes to adapt to these diverging rules, which could increase our costs and adversely affect our business. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million/GBP 17.5 million or 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Since we are subject to the supervision of relevant data protection authorities under both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR, we could be fined under each of those regimes independently in respect of the same breach. In addition to fines, a breach of the GDPR may result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/ change our data processing activities, enforcement notices, assessment notices (for a compulsory audit) and/or civil claims (including class actions). In addition, the GDPR increases the scrutiny of transfers of personal data from the EEA or UK, including from clinical trial sites located in the EEA to the United States and other jurisdictions that the European Commission or UK government does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws. Recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and uncertainty regarding such transfers, in particular in relation to transfers to the United States. Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) states that reliance on the standard contractual clauses – a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism – alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We expect the existing legal complexity and uncertainty regarding international personal data transfers to continue and international transfers to the United States and to other jurisdictions more generally to continue to be subject to enhanced scrutiny by regulators. As the regulatory guidance and enforcement landscape in relation to data transfers continue to develop, we may have to make certain operational changes and we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we operate our business, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results. The applicable laws, rules and regulations relating to privacy and data security are in some cases relatively new and the interpretation and application of these laws are uncertain. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with data privacy laws, rules, regulations, industry standards and other requirements could result in proceedings or actions against us by individuals, consumer rights groups, government agencies, or others. We could incur significant costs in investigating and defending such claims and, if found liable, pay significant damages or fines or be required to make changes to our business. Further, these proceedings and any subsequent adverse outcomes may subject us to significant negative publicity and an erosion of trust. Compliance with data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. If any of these events were to occur, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we use AI, ML, and automated decision-making technologies (collectively, “AI Technologies”) in our business. The regulatory framework for AI Technologies is rapidly evolving as many federal, state, and foreign government bodies and agencies have introduced or are currently considering additional laws and regulations. Additionally, existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in ways that would affect the operation of AI Technologies. As a result, implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or market perception of their requirements may have on our business and may not always be able to anticipate how to respond to these laws or regulations. It is possible that new laws and regulations will be adopted in the United States and in other non-U.S. jurisdictions, or that existing laws and regulations, including competition and antitrust laws, may be interpreted in ways that would limit, or alter, our ability to use AI Technologies for our business. Further, the cost to comply with such laws, regulations, or decisions and/or guidance interpreting existing laws, could be significant, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 49 Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives and judicial challenges to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs. Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory challenges. For example, in order for a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. For the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, CMS altered the reimbursement formula from Average Sale Price (“ASP”) plus 6 percent to ASP minus 22.5 percent on specified covered outpatient drugs but did so without issuing a formal notice of proposed rulemaking, which was subsequently challenged in court. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that although the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has authority to set reimbursement rates based on average price and discretion to “adjust” the price up or down, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group unless it conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that HHS’s changes to the 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were unlawful. Based on the foregoing, CMS issued a final rule, effective January 1, 2023, pursuant to which CMS pays 340B hospitals under Medicare Part B for certain outpatient drugs at the drug’s ASP, plus 6%, the same rate used for non-340B hospitals. It is unclear how future changes to the payment methodology may affect pharmaceutical manufacturers and hospitals who purchase their products now and in the future. There have been a number of significant changes to the ACA and its implementation, as well as judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, resulted in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect in 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap for single source and innovator multiple source drugs beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation 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. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which went into effect in 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs, which will first be effective in 2027. Each year thereafter, more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the HHS price negotiation program, although the program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, or the impact of the IRA on our business. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) also included significant reforms to Medicaid, including an estimated $1.0 trillion in reduced federal Medicaid spending from 2025 through 2034, the imposition of work requirements for certain adult enrollees, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and increased cost-sharing for beneficiaries. These changes are expected to reduce overall Medicaid enrollment 50 and access to care. Although the effect on our business is currently unknown, any decrease in the number of insured patients or reimbursement levels for our products, if approved, could adversely affect our revenue and commercial prospects. The Trump administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the U.S. While it is unclear whether and how the Trump proposals will be implemented, the Trump policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for our product candidates, if approved. On the one hand, President Trump has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have reportedly entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the Trump administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. In addition, pharmaceutical pricing and marketing has long been the subject of considerable discussion in Congress and among policymakers, and it is possible that Congress could enact additional laws that negatively affect the pharmaceutical industry. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at 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 product. 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. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect: • the demand for our product candidates, if approved; • our ability to receive or set a price that we believe is fair for our products; • our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability; • the amount of taxes that we are required to pay; and • the availability of capital. We expect that the other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Governments outside the United States may impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any. In some countries, including member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription medicinal products is subject to governmental control. Additional countries may adopt similar approaches to the pricing of prescription drugs. In such countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing used by various countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval, which is time-consuming and costly. We cannot be sure that such prices and reimbursement will be acceptable to us. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected. 51 We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before we do or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, with new approaches and technologies regularly emerging. We expect to face competition across our current programs and with any future programs we may seek to develop and/or commercialize from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic pharmaceutical companies among others. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. In addition, programs that we currently believe to be complementary may eventually become competitors. If any of our competitors receives FDA approval before we do, our product candidates would not be the first treatment on the market, and our market share may be limited. In addition to competition from other companies targeting our target indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies. We face competition across our programs in depression, including from Axsome Therapeutics, GH Research, The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Helus Pharma, Neumora Therapeutics, Alto Neuroscience, Neurocrine Biosciences, as well as COMPASS, in which we hold an equity stake and; SAD, including from VistaGen Therapeutics, Engrail Therapeutics, Definium Therapeutics, Helus Pharma, and Lykos Therapeutics; as well as in other therapeutic areas and indications. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, may have or develop in the future: • greater financial, technical, and human resources than we have at every stage of the discovery, development, manufacture, and commercialization of products; • more extensive experience in preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and in manufacturing, marketing, and selling drug products; • products that have been approved or are in late stages of development; and • collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring intellectual property or other technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disorder indications or similar indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our product candidates. Our competitors may also obtain FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours or may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our programs’ patents relating to our competitors’ products, and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Our ability to successfully identify patients and acquire a significant market share will be necessary for us to achieve profitability and growth. We focus research and product development on treatments for mental health disorders, including depression, substance use disorder, anxiety and other neurological indications. Our projections of both the number of individuals who are affected by our target disorder indications and 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 the scientific literature, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these disorders. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with these mental health disorders we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our 52 product candidates that we may identify may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations may be small, we may never achieve profitability. Risks Related to Reliance on Third Parties We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates. If we enter into any collaboration arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. Collaborations involving our product candidates would pose numerous risks to us, including the following: • collaborators may have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to collaborations; • collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in their strategic focus due to their acquisition of competitive products or their internal development of competitive products, availability of funding or other external factors, such as a business combination that diverts resources or creates competing priorities; • collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial, abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing; • collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates; • a collaborator with marketing, manufacturing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to or otherwise not perform satisfactorily in carrying out these activities; • we could grant exclusive rights to collaborators that would prevent us from collaborating with others; • collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our programs’ intellectual property rights or may use our programs’ intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate such intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us or our programs to potential liability; • disputes may arise between us and a collaborator that cause the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our current or future product candidates or that results in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources; • collaborations may be terminated, which may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable current or future product candidates; • collaborators may own or co-own intellectual property covering products that result from our collaboration with them, and in such cases, we would not have the exclusive right to develop or commercialize such intellectual property; • disputes may arise with respect to the ownership of any intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaborations; and • a collaborator’s sales and marketing activities or other operations may not be in compliance with applicable laws resulting in civil or criminal proceedings. Management of our relationships with collaborators will require: • significant time and effort from our management team; • coordination of our marketing and research and development programs with the marketing and research and development priorities of our collaborators; and • effective allocation of our resources to multiple projects. Any potential future collaborations may be terminable by our strategic partners, and we may not be able to adequately protect our rights under these agreements. Furthermore, strategic partners may negotiate for certain rights to control decisions regarding the development and commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, and may not conduct those activities in the same manner as we do. Any termination of collaborations we enter into in the future, or any delay in entering into collaborations related to our product candidates, could 53 delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We rely on third parties to assist in conducting our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing. We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of research and preclinical testing and clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay product development activities. Further, although our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities limits our control over these activities, we remain responsible for ensuring that each trial is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards. For example, notwithstanding the obligations of a CRO for a trial of one of our product candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each clinical trial is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities requires compliance with requirements, commonly referred to as GCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. The FDA and other comparable foreign authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites and IRBs. If we or our third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in their clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities may require additional clinical trials before approving our product candidates, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials have complied with GCPs. We are also required to register certain clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. Furthermore, the third parties conducting clinical trials on our behalf are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under the agreements with such contractors, we cannot control whether or not such contractors devote sufficient time, skill and resources to their ongoing development programs. These contractors may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug or medical device development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If these third parties, including clinical investigators, do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approvals for our product candidates. If that occurs, we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. In such an event, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidates that we seek to develop could be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed, impaired or foreclosed. We currently rely on qualified healthcare professionals working at third-party clinical trial sites to administer certain of our product candidates in our clinical trials, and we expect this to continue upon approval, if any, of our current or future product candidates. If third-party sites fail to recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified healthcare professionals or effectively manage their professionals, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed. We currently administer certain of our product candidates in our clinical trials through qualified third-party healthcare professionals working at third-party clinical trial sites. However, there are currently not enough trained qualified healthcare professionals to carry out our therapies at a commercial scale, and our efforts to facilitate training and certification programs for therapists may be unsuccessful. While we currently provide training to the qualified healthcare professionals and expect to continue providing trainings in the future (either directly or indirectly through third-party providers), we do not currently employ the such professionals who deliver our therapies to patients and do not intend to do so in the future. We generally rely on qualified and certified third-party therapy sites to manage the qualified healthcare professionals and monitor the administration of our therapies and ensure that the administration process of our therapies comply with our established protocols. If any of our current or any future product candidates are approved for commercialization, third-party therapy sites may demand substantial financial resources from us to recruit and retain a team of qualified healthcare professionals to administer such products. If the third-party therapy sites fail to recruit, train and retain a sufficient number of therapists, our ability to offer and administer our therapies will be greatly harmed, which may in turn reduce the market acceptance rate of our therapies. If this occurs, our commercialization prospects would be negatively affected and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed. Additionally, if the third-party therapy sites do not properly manage and supervise the qualified healthcare professionals, there is a risk that they may deviate from our training protocols, fail to follow the guidelines we have established, or abuse patients during therapeutic administration sessions. The qualified healthcare professionals might also administer unauthorized therapies to patients using illegal drug compounds in “underground” clinics. Such illegal activities would put the patients at risk and subject us to potential liabilities, litigation, 54 regulatory proceedings and reputational harm. If this were to occur, we may face serious setbacks for our commercialization process and our financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed. Our use of third parties to manufacture and develop our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or if approved, our products, or necessary quantities of such materials on time or at an acceptable cost, and that a competitor or other third party will discover our trade secrets or such trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed. We generally rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates or other product candidates that we may identify for clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if any product candidates receive marketing authorization and approval. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe they have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the trial, any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay the clinical development and potential regulatory authorization of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations. We may be unable to identify and appropriately qualify third-party manufacturers or establish agreements with third-party manufacturers or do so on acceptable terms. Even if they are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including: • reliance on the third-party for sourcing of raw materials, components, and such other goods as may be required for execution of its manufacturing processes and the oversight by the third-party of its suppliers; • reliance on the third-party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance for the manufacturing activities each performs; • the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third-party; • the possible misappropriation of proprietary information, including trade secrets and know-how; and • the possible termination or non-renewal of the agreement by the third-party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. Furthermore, we and our CMOs are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our drug or medical device product candidates are subject to review by the FDA, MHRA and other comparable foreign authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA, or other marketing application to such regulatory authorities. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are to some extent dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as cGMP requirements for manufacture of drug and device products or similar requirements outside the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, MHRA or other comparable foreign authorities, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory authorization for our product candidates manufactured at these manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, or another comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory authorization for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and marketed products for access to manufacturing facilities. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacturing of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis. If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our supply demands, our business will be harmed. All entities involved in the preparation of product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CMOs for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished drug or product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including recordkeeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production, seizures or recalls of product candidates or marketed drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our product candidates. 55 We and our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation, as applicable, in support of a marketing application, such as an NDA or MAA, on a timely basis and must adhere to regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must successfully complete a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not successfully complete a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever. The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third-party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business. Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified. For drug products, an NDA supplement or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing is also required, which could result in further delay. Similarly, for any product regulated as a medical device or drug-device combination product, a new marketing application or supplement may be required. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed, and we could lose potential revenue. We have no sales, distribution, or marketing experience, and may invest significant financial and management resources to establish these capabilities. If we are unable to establish such capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our future products, if approved, we may be unable to generate any revenues. Given our stage of development, we have no sales, distribution, or marketing experience. To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop sales and marketing capabilities in the United States, Europe and other regions, either on our own or with others. We may enter into strategic alliances with other entities to utilize their mature marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into marketing agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future strategic collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we may be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We will be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations. Without a significant internal team or the support of a third-party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our existing product candidates or any other product candidates that we may identify, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection we currently have or obtain in the future is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may pursue may be impaired. As is the case with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates and technology. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad and in-licensing intellectual property related to our existing product candidates, our various proprietary technologies and any other product candidates or technologies that we may identify. Obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents is costly, time consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and 56 development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In addition, we may experience difficulties in enforcing the intellectual property rights in output generated by generative AI Technologies. The United States Copyright Office has previously denied copyright protection for content generated by AI Technologies, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office has similarly stated that an AI tool cannot be an “inventor” of a patent, rendering it impossible to obtain patent protection for inventions created solely by AI Technologies. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has reached a similar conclusion, stating that AI systems cannot be named as an “inventor” for UK patent law purposes. The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal, technological and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The standards that the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending application or later invalidate or narrow the scope of an issued patent. For example, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. In some instances, we submit patent applications directly with the USPTO as provisional patent applications. However, U.S. provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents unless and until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the provisional application filing date. With regard to such U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not timely file any non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. Any pending and future patent applications that we own or in-license may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidates or technology, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications that we own or license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative product candidates in a non-infringing manner. In addition, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical product candidates to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drugs similar or identical to ours. Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. For example, the United States federal government retains such rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. The research resulting in certain of our in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by a governmental authority, for example, the U.S. government and the Japanese government. As a result, such governmental authority may have certain rights, including march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology, under the Bayh-Dole Act or similar laws in other jurisdictions and our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights or by any third-party of its reserved rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 57 Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject in part to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, and the patent protection, prosecution and enforcement for some of our product candidates may be dependent on their licensors. We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain intellectual property rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our proprietary technology, including technology related to our product candidates. These licenses, and other licenses we may enter into in the future, may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property rights and proprietary technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize technology and product candidates in the future. Licenses to additional third-party proprietary technology or intellectual property rights that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our proprietary technology or product candidates or to develop or license replacement technology, which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may not be able to develop and commercialize technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses, which could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or by paying all applicable prosecution and maintenance fees related to intellectual property registrations for any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that our licensors have drafted or prosecuted the patents and patent applications licensed to us in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. This could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property rights that are subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or these agreements are terminated or we otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business. We are party to various agreements that we depend on to develop our product candidates and various proprietary technologies, and our rights to use currently licensed intellectual property, or intellectual property to be licensed in the future, are or will be subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of these agreements. For example, under certain of our license agreements, we are subject to certain diligence obligations, including to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize product candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property rights and to maintain the licensed intellectual property rights, each of which could result in the termination of the relevant license agreements in the event we fail to comply. Despite our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including: • the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; • the extent to which our product candidates, technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement; • the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships; • our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; 58 • the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and • the priority of invention of patented technology. In addition, certain provisions in our license agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Third parties may claim that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for or obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell, if approved, our product candidates. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a considerable number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity may be difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity in court requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity that applies to issued patents, and a court of competent jurisdiction may not invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. In addition, many companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk increases that our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. There may be other third-party patents or patent applications with claims to composition of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our existing or future product candidates. Further, we may not be aware of patents that have already been issued and that a third party, for example, a competitor in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates, might assert are infringed by our current or future product candidates, including claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover our product candidates. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop, could be found to be infringed by our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or it may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property rights. Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by 59 disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on product candidates for an adequate amount of time. Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional or international patent application filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. If we are not able to obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the marketing exclusivity term of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such product candidates or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments allow a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates, such as the Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe. In particular, a maximum of five and a half years of supplementary protection can be achieved in Europe for an active ingredient or combinations of active ingredients of a medicinal product protected by a basic patent, if a valid marketing authorization exists (which must be the first authorization to place the product on the market as a medicinal product) and if the product has not already been the subject of supplementary protection. Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If or when one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any ANDA filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate. If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business would be harmed. We consider proprietary trade secrets, confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. We seek to protect our confidential proprietary information, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with parties who have access to them, including our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors, CROs, contract manufacturers, collaborators and other third parties, that are designed to protect our proprietary information. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology, and we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary technology, or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We also seek to preserve the 60 integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know, whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. We may not be able to obtain adequate remedies in the event of such unauthorized use. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Trade secrets will also over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic institutions to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets and proprietary information, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of such information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be harmed. If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected. Our current or future registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or descriptive, cancelled or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using those names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Although these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful and our issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in courts or patent offices. Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and 61 attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one or more of our product candidates, the defendant could allege that we infringe their patents, assert counterclaims that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including novelty, nonobviousness, written description or enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks. Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Moreover, we may not have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. Further, interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue clinical trials, continue research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring product candidates to market. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties. Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our shareholders, or it may be otherwise impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other product candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market. We may become subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property. Our agreements with employees and contractors and our personnel policies provide that any inventions conceived by an individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. Although our policy is to have all such individuals complete these 62 agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing and individuals with whom we have entered into these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property may not be automatic upon the creation of an invention and despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection. We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arising from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of our or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other confidential information of their current or former employers or other third parties. As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the intellectual property, proprietary information, know how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer or other third parties. We may also become subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our product candidates, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. We may also lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of our owned and licensed patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ outside firms and rely on outside counsel to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies. However, we cannot guarantee that our licensors have similar systems and procedures in place to pay such fees. In addition, the USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. 63 We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world. Patents are of national or regional effect, and filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. For example, in EU countries, compulsory licensing laws compel patent owners to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. In addition, geopolitical developments around the world could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. For example, the United States and foreign government actions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution, and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees from the United States without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Additionally, the United States and foreign government actions related to conflict in the Middle East, including the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, may limit or prevent filing, prosecution, and maintenance of patent applications in Israel. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Israel. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Israel. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our programs’ ability to protect their products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to a patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third-party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third-party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application and be diligent in filing patent applications, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. 64 The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third-party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third-party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third-party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. For example, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future. Recent decisions, including by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, raise questions regarding the award of Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for patents in families where related patents have issued without PTA. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty how PTA will or will not be viewed in the future and whether patent expiration dates may be impacted. Further, in Europe, the new unitary patent system took effect June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court ("UPC"). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes. Risks Related to Our Business and Industry Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, directors, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on the management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development expertise of our executive officers, our directors, as well as the other members of our scientific and clinical teams, including Christian Angermayer, our co-founder and chair of our board of directors, and Srinivas Rao, our co-founder and Chief Executive Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers and other key personnel, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, because certain of our key personnel provide a centralized source of support across multiple of our programs, the loss of any of these key personnel could negatively affect the operations of the affected programs, and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, each of our executive officers may terminate their employment with us at any time, subject to notice period requirements. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of our pipeline toward scaling up for commercialization, sales and marketing personnel, will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and other key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates. Competition to hire qualified personnel in our industry is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. Furthermore, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have 65 commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we a