Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business
We are a clinical stage genome editing company dedicated to developing potentially transformative genomic medicines to treat a broad range of serious diseases. The promise of genomic medicines is supported by the advancing knowledge of the human genome and by harnessing the progress in technologies for cell therapy, gene therapy, and, most recently, gene editing. We believe this progress sets the stage for us to create medicines with the potential to have a durable benefit for patients. Our core capability in gene editing uses the technology known as CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats) to allow us to create molecules that efficiently and specifically edit DNA. Our mission is to translate the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable or under-treated diseases.
We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform based on CRISPR technology and we continue to expand its capabilities. CRISPR uses a protein-RNA complex composed of an enzyme, including either Cas9 (CRISPR associated protein 9) or Cas12a (CRISPR from Prevotella and Francisella 1, also known as Cpf1), bound to a guide RNA molecule designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. Once the complex binds to the DNA sequence it is designed to recognize, the complex makes a specific cut in the DNA. We believe we are the only human genome editing company with a platform that includes CRISPR/Cas9, CRISPR/Cas12a, engineered forms of both of these CRISPR systems, and foundational intellectual property for both of these CRISPR systems. Because of the broad nature of this platform, we believe we can create gene editing molecules for over 95% of the human genome.
Our Strategy
We seek to be a leader in in vivo programmable gene editing, leveraging cutting edge gene editing technology to deliver therapies that simplify the usability for patients, minimize the burdens to patients and healthcare systems, and are meaningfully differentiated from the current standards of care. To achieve this, we are focused on advancing gene editing medicines to treat hemoglobinopathies, beginning with the continued development of our current ex vivo EDIT-301 program and leveraging the insights gained from this program to pursue next generation in vivo gene editing medicines targeting hematopoietic stem cells (“HSCs”). In parallel, we are pursuing the development of in vivo gene editing medicines for other organs and tissues that we believe will significantly differentiate our genome editing approach from the current standards of care for serious diseases. As part of these efforts, we are using existing strategic partnerships and collaborations and pursuing further opportunities to extend the reach of our intellectual property portfolio and access complementary technologies to expedite our drug discovery and clinical execution objectives.
Ex vivo Hemoglobinopathies
Using our proprietary AsCas12a enzyme, we can efficiently and specifically edit HSCs, which we believe can lead to best-in-class medicines for hemoglobinopathies. Our lead program, EDIT-301, is an experimental ex vivo gene-edited medicine to treat sickle cell disease (“SCD”), a severe inherited blood disease that causes premature death, and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (“TDT”), the most severe form of beta-thalassemia, an inherited blood disorder characterized by severe anemia. In the second quarter of 2022, we dosed the first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of EDIT-301, which we refer to as our RUBY trial, for the treatment of severe SCD, and in December 2022, announced initial clinical data from the first two patients treated in the RUBY trial. This clinical data supports human proof of concept by showing that EDIT-301 could safely increase expression of fetal hemoglobin to clinically meaningful levels and correct anemia in SCD patients. For additional information regarding these clinical data, please see “Business—Our Gene Editing Medicine Programs—Hemoglobinopathies.” After completing sequential dosing of the first two patients, we have commenced parallel patient dosing in this trial, meaning that we can now dose multiple patients simultaneously, and are on track to dose 20 total patients by the end of 2023. We expect to provide clinical updates from the RUBY trial in mid-2023 and end of 2023.
In December 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) cleared our Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of EDIT-301 for the treatment of TDT. This trial, referred to as our EDITHAL trial, is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of EDIT-301 for the treatment of
6
Table of Contents
TDT. We are on track to dose the first patient in this trial in the first quarter of 2023. We expect to provide data on this patient by the end of 2023.
We believe that our unique editing approach, and the initial data from the RUBY trial, support potential differentiation of our EDIT-301 experimental medicine. The CRISPR nuclease used in the program is a proprietary high fidelity, highly specific, engineered AsCas12a enzyme for which we have exclusively licensed the foundational intellectual property to develop and commercialize human therapeutics. This enzyme has demonstrated high efficiency editing of multipotent long-term HSCs for sustained efficacy and durability. Its use to target the HBG1 and HBG2 promoters to mimic naturally occurring human mutations, analogous to patients with naturally occurring hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin, is potentially a more effective approach with better long-term safety than other editing targets and mechanisms. We seek to further differentiate this program by developing milder conditioning protocols. The myeloablative busulfan conditioning regimen for HSC transplantation that is necessary for current gene editing therapies for SCD and TDT requires that patients undergo immunosuppression at the time of transplant and carries with it the long-term burdens of infertility and oncogenesis. We are in early stage research for the development of non-myeloablative patient preconditioning regimens for HSC transplantations. We believe that developing milder conditioning protocols will further position us to develop a potentially best-in-class medicine to treat SCD and TDT that improves the therapeutic proposition for patients.
In vivo Medicines
We are also pursuing the development of next generation in vivo administered gene editing medicines, in which the medicine is injected or infused into the patient to edit the cells inside their body . Leveraging our differentiated approach from our EDIT-301 program, we are initially focused on editing HSCs through targeted delivery of our AsCas12a enzyme to our clinically validated HBG1 and HBG2 promotor site. By editing HSCs directly in patients without transplantation, no myeloablative conditioning is required, thereby avoiding the adverse effects associated with current HSC transplantation protocols. We believe such a product could be used in multiple different healthcare settings with a much lower burden on patients and treatment sites.
Beyond hemoglobinopathies, our discovery and development efforts are focused on in vivo gene editing medicines in other organs and tissues, with the goal of selecting therapeutic targets we believe have a significant probability of technical, regulatory, and commercial success.
Business Development
We are pursuing the right combination of gene editing and targeted delivery tools through internal development and the in-licensing of complementary technologies, while also leveraging our intellectual property portfolio to drive potential out-licensing and partnership discussions that can accelerate the achievement of our goal of delivering lifesaving medicines to patients with previously untreatable or under-treated diseases.
In cellular therapy medicines, we are leveraging new and existing partnerships to progress engineered cell medicines to treat various cancers. We are advancing alpha-beta T-cell experimental medicines for the treatment of solid and liquid tumors in collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno Therapeutics”). This collaboration, which leverages our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies, has resulted in 11 programs. We have also entered into a non-exclusive collaboration and licensing agreement with Immatics N.V. to combine gamma-delta T cell adoptive cell therapies and gene editing to develop medicines for the treatment of cancer.
In January 2023, we announced the sale of our wholly owned oncology assets to Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (“Shoreline”). Under the agreement, Shoreline acquired EDIT-202, our preclinical multiplexed edited induced human pluripotent stem cell (“iPSC”)-derived natural killer (“iNK”) cell medicine for the treatment of solid tumors, as well as an additional iNK program under development and certain related manufacturing technologies. We also exclusively licensed to Shoreline our rights to a proprietary knock-in gene editing technology referred to as SLEEK (SeLection by Essential-gene Exon Knock-in) for use in Shoreline’s iNK platform and for oncology in Shoreline’s iPSC-derived
7
Table of Contents
macrophage platform, as well as non-exclusively licensed our AsCas12a gene editing technology. We believe that this transaction will enable this oncology program to more rapidly move towards clinical applications and benefit patients.
Our Core Capability — Gene Editing
Gene editing is the process of revising, removing, or repairing defective DNA in situ . In general, gene editing corrects the defective DNA in its native genomic location, and consequently the repaired genetic region retains the cell’s normal control and feedback mechanisms. Gene editing typically takes advantage of naturally occurring DNA repair mechanisms, including non-homologous end joining (“NHEJ”) and homology directed repair (“HDR”), to achieve its desired therapeutic outcome. Edits that are repaired by NHEJ typically disrupt a gene or eliminate a disease-causing mutation. Edits that are repaired by HDR, including targeted insertion, aim to correct or replace aberrant DNA sequences. The diversity of genetic drivers of disease demands a variety of solutions. Gene editing has the potential to deliver a variety of types of genome modification to address a broad range of diseases.
CRISPR technology uses a protein-RNA complex composed of a type of enzyme, referred to as a DNA endonuclease, bound to an RNA molecule, referred to as a guide RNA, that has been designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. A DNA endonuclease is an enzyme that cleaves DNA. This combination of a DNA endonuclease and a guide RNA only bind and cut DNA when two criteria are met: first, the protein recognizes a short DNA specific to the enzyme called the protospacer adjacent motif (“PAM”), and second, the appropriate portion of the guide RNA matches the adjacent DNA sequence. The PAM sequence that is recognized by the DNA endonuclease creates a second layer of recognition in addition to the guide RNA. We believe that CRISPR technology has three principal advantages for genome editing:
● Rapid, comprehensive, and systematic identification of product candidates. The key targeting mechanism for the endonuclease, whether it is Cas9 or Cas12a, is a guide RNA, which can be rapidly replaced with a different guide RNA or optimized by changes as small as a single nucleotide. This allows for the flexible design, synthesis, and testing of hundreds of guide RNA/endonuclease combinations for each genetic target in order to find those that cut the DNA target with the optimal efficiency and specificity. In contrast, other commonly used DNA nucleases for gene editing have inherently limited flexibility. For example, zinc finger nucleases, engineered meganucleases, and transcription activator-like effector nucleases use proteins for DNA sequence recognition to bring the endonuclease to the site of the genome where cleavage is desired, requiring the creation of an entirely new protein for each target site.
● Simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. In CRISPR technology, multiple guide RNAs can be provided along with the same endonuclease, enabling the simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. This ability to target multiple DNA sequences expands the applicability of CRISPR technology and also creates the potential for self-regulating systems that control exposure to the editing machinery. To address more than one target, other gene editing technologies require the engineering, characterization, manufacture, and delivery of distinct nuclease proteins for each target.
● Ability to achieve a range of different types of edits. The inherent differences in Cas9 and Cas12a and the availability of different engineered variants of both enzymes allow for different types of cuts for gene editing. We are able to make a blunt cut, cut either strand of the DNA, or create overhangs of differing length. This may be a critical component of improved HDR-driven approaches because the type of DNA cut can influence the type of repair mechanism used by a cell in response to that cut. We believe the ability to modify CRISPR technology to allow for different types of cuts will expand the potential of our gene editing platform.
Our Gene Editing Platform
We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform that includes different natural and engineered variants of Cas9 and Cas12a. We have characterized different Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes for several reasons. Firstly, a lower molecular weight enzyme will have advantages for delivering the endonuclease using a viral vector due to the inherent size limitations of most such delivery systems. For example, the Cas9 enzyme from SaCas9 is significantly smaller than
8
Table of Contents
that from Streptococcus pyogenes (“ S. pyogenes ” or “SpCas9”) (3,159 vs. 4,104 base pairs), and this decreased size is important when working with adeno-associated viral vectors (“AAV”) as a delivery vector, which has an effective packaging limit of approximately 4,700 base pairs. Secondly, we have gained access to modified versions of Cas12a and Cas12a guide RNAs that increase Cas12a activity. This increased activity may allow us to use Cas12a editing in more indications where editing at a Cas12a susceptible site is desirable from a biological perspective but technically difficult with the wild-type Cas12a editing system. EDIT-301 for SCD and TDT is one such example. Thirdly, identifying Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes with different editing properties will expand the number of potential editing sites in the human genome. The range of natural and engineered variants of Cas9 and Cas12a have significantly expanded the number of sites in the human genome that we can potentially target. As compared to the most commonly used, naturally occurring version of Cas9, from the bacterial species S. pyogenes , the range of endonucleases in our platform can target approximately ten times as many genomic sites. Thus, while the S. pyogenes Cas9 can target approximately 1 in 10 bases in the human genome, we have the potential to hit over 95% of all bases due to the wide range of endonucleases at our disposal.
The guide RNA molecule is another component of our gene editing platform. We have made substantial advances in the design, synthesis, modification, analysis, and characterization of guide RNAs. For example, in order to accelerate and standardize the selection of guide RNAs, we have created proprietary analytical software that supports guide RNA design through single nucleotide polymorphism analysis, specificity prediction, and assessment of relative importance of potential off target sites. Of critical importance in determining the activity and specificity of an endonuclease-guide RNA complex is understanding the quality and composition of the guide RNA. The ability to understand the quality and composition of the guide RNA is an essential component to developing product candidates that have the potential to be safe and efficacious medicines. In order to understand the absolute composition of our guide RNAs, we utilize state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and sequencing methodologies.
Our gene editing platform includes multiple modular delivery modes that can be efficiently adapted to deliver different CRISPR gene editing components to address the specific needs of each disease targeted. Our strategy is to leverage existing delivery technologies to target cell types of interest while developing next generation capabilities as warranted. We have developed a variety of delivery approaches, including electroporation for efficient delivery to blood cells ex vivo , lipid nanoparticles for non-viral in vivo delivery, and AAVs for in vivo viral delivery. We have made substantial advances in the ex vivo delivery of CRISPR systems to a number of cell types. We have been able to demonstrate greater than 90% ex vivo editing in HSCs using ribonucleoprotein complexes, which consist of the Cas9 or Cas12a endonuclease complexed with its guide RNA. These results are consistent across multiple cell donors and multiple target genes. In addition, we have taken advantage of the smaller S. aureus Cas9 and existing AAV technology to construct an “all-in-one” viral vector that is able to deliver the DNA coding for the nuclease protein and one or two guide RNAs directly to cells, which we believe has substantial advantages for manufacturing and delivery compared to approaches that rely on multiple vectors.
To optimize the specificity of our product candidates, there are a number of different aspects of the product configuration that we customize in addition to the sequence and quality of the guide RNA, including the length of the guide RNA, the type of Cas9 or Cas12a enzyme, including engineered forms, the delivery vector, the use of tissue-selective promoters, and the duration of exposure, all of which contribute to overall specificity.
Our Gene Editing Medicine Programs
Our research and development efforts are focused on hemoglobinopathies and developing next generation in vivo medicines, including in vivo editing of HSCs and other organs and tissues. Our product development strategy is to target diseases where gene editing can be used to enable or enhance therapeutic outcomes for patients, while maximizing probability of technical, regulatory and commercial success. We believe the therapeutic programs and delivery technologies we have chosen to pursue to date and those that are currently under development will demonstrate the depth and breadth of our ability to deploy our genome editing platform to develop differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable or under-treated diseases. The following summarizes our product candidates, research programs and disease areas:
9
Table of Contents
Ex vivo Hemoglobinopothies
We are developing an approach for gene editing in HSCs to support the advancement of research programs to treat non-malignant hematological diseases. Our most advanced program, EDIT-301, is an ex vivo gene edited medicine designed to treat SCD and TDT.
Sickle cell disease affects millions of people worldwide, including approximately 100,000 people in the United States, and over 300,000 babies are born annually with SCD globally. Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia is relatively rare in the United States, affecting approximately 1,000 people, but is one of the most common autosomal recessive disorders in the world, found most often among individuals of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent. Patients suffering from SCD can experience vaso-occlusive events and other severe symptoms such as anemia, fatigue, hemolysis, stroke, and other end-organ damages, while those with TDT typically suffer from chronic anemia, often requiring lifelong blood transfusions that can result in iron overload that requires separate treatment. While allogeneic bone marrow transplantation can cure SCD, less than 20% of patients can find matched donors and there is a risk of serious complications. We are actively pursuing a distinct gene editing approach to treating these hemoglobinopathies. Our primary criteria for a successful product candidate include high and pancellular fetal hemoglobin (“HbF”) with a best-in-class safety profile. To this end, we have developed EDIT-301, an experimental, autologous cell therapy that targets the HBG1/2 promoter and disrupts the binding site of the BCL11A , consistent with observed naturally occurring human mutations. These mutations mimic the asymptomatic condition of hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin (“HPFH”). By editing the HBG1/2 promoter in the beta-globin gene, we seek to generate protective changes that increase HbF production in a manner that is independent of erythropoietic stress, resulting in reduced sickling and vaso-occlusive events in sickle cell patients, and resolving anemia and transfusion dependence in beta thalassemia patients. We believe that mimicking a combination of HPFH mutations that elevate HbF could be more effective than recreating a single point mutation. EDIT-301 is the first experimental medicine in development generated using CRISPR/Cas12a (also known as Cpf1) gene editing.
We have focused our efforts on editing a site within the beta-globin locus that we believe has the potential to create superior expression of fetal hemoglobin since patients with elevated HbF levels have better clinical outcomes. We believe that EDIT-301 has the potential to impact beta-globin expression by increasing HbF and decreasing sickle globin. In particular, our preclinical data shows that EDIT-301 induces more HbF than the approach of targeting the BCL11A erythroid enhancer (“BC11Ae”). Likewise, we believe our approach will reduce the sickle globin and, therefore, not have to compete for alpha globin in the same cell unlike lentiviral gene therapy approaches. Our preclinical studies identified the potential that BC11Ae might result in deleterious lineage skewing when editing
10
Table of Contents
the BCL11Ae locus. Finally, gene editing is more specific than lentiviral expression. To get the high levels of beta-globin required for an efficacious therapy, there will be cells in the CD34+ population, which are cells that contain the long-term stem cells that repopulate the hematopoietic lineages, that carry more than twenty copies of the viral genome. These random integration events have the potential to inadvertently activate or inactivate genes involved in cell function and tumorigenesis. As such, we believe our approach to editing the beta-globin locus provides the highest likelihood of providing clinical benefit in patients while minimizing potential safety risks.
Preclinical studies
Using our approach in preclinical studies, we tested the ability of CD34+ cells obtained from healthy donors and edited at the beta-globin locus to induce fetal hemoglobin. As predicted from our preclinical in vitro studies, editing at the beta-globin site with Cas12a caused a robust, pancellular induction of HbF of approximately 45% above the background levels.
We also tested CD34+ cells obtained from sickle cell patients, which we edited at the beta-globin locus. These studies showed that editing was highly efficient and reproducible, with approximately 90% editing in multiple sickle patient donors. We found that EDIT-301 derived red blood cells had more than 50% HbF expression. Further, EDIT-301 derived red blood cells had a significant improvement in deformability, which could aid red blood cell transit without sickling, and a four-fold decrease in sickling, when subjected to reduced oxygen levels compared to unedited control cells. These data suggest EDIT-301 can provide potential clinical benefit for sickle patients. In vivo studies revealed editing was highly efficient with greater than 90% editing in bone marrow cells from mice infused with edited CD34+ cells 16 weeks post-infusion. In these mice, HbF expression was increased by approximately 50% in the red blood cells derived from these edited cells. We also observed that approximately 90% of these cells were HbF positive, demonstrating that HbF expression was pan-cellular, which we believe is likely a critical property for potential clinical benefit. For these reasons, we believe our approach of editing the hemoglobin locus to increase HbF has the potential to generate differentiated medicines to benefit patients with sickle cell disease and TDT.
Clinical trial
In January 2021, the FDA cleared the start of enrollment and dosing of patients in the first phase of our Phase 1/2 RUBY clinical trial of EDIT-301 for the treatment of SCD, and in July 2022, the FDA removed its partial clinical hold, enabling us to include efficacy data from patients in a future marketing application for EDIT-301. This trial is a single-arm, open-label, multi-center Phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and efficacy of EDIT-301 in patients with SCD. Enrolled patients receive a single administration of EDIT-301.
In December 2022, we announced initial clinical data from the first two patients treated in the RUBY trial, which supports human proof of concept by showing that EDIT-301 could safely increase expression of fetal hemoglobin to clinically meaningful levels and correct anemia in SCD patients. The clinical data included safety data from the first two patients and efficacy data from the first patient treated. Both treated patients demonstrated successful neutrophil and platelet engraftment. Patient 1 achieved neutrophil engraftment at 23 days after EDIT-301 infusion and platelet engraftment at 19 days after EDIT-301 infusion. Patient 2 achieved neutrophil engraftment 29 days after EDIT-301 infusion and platelet engraftment 37 days after EDIT-301 infusion. Additionally, neither patient had experienced any vaso-occlusive events since treatment with EDIT-301, at five and 1.5 months follow up, respectively. At five months post-treatment, the first patient treated with EDIT-301 had a total hemoglobin of 16.4 g/dL, an HbF of 45.4%, and a mean corpuscular HbF of 13.8 pg/red blood cell, exceeding the 10.0 pg/red blood cell threshold to suppress red blood cell sickling. Additionally, HbF increase in the first patient was highly pancellular, with F cells steadily increasing to reach greater than 95% of red blood cells. EDIT-301 was well-tolerated in the two patients and demonstrated a safety profile consistent with myeloablative conditioning with busulfan and autologous HSC transplant. No serious adverse events occurred, and no adverse events reported were related to treatment with EDIT-301.
In December 2021, the FDA cleared our IND application for our Phase 1/2 EDITHAL clinical trial of EDIT-301 for the treatment of TDT. This trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of EDIT-301 for the treatment of TDT.
11
Table of Contents
We have increased our investment in our EDIT-301 program to expand our editing capacity and accelerate clinical trial enrollment and dosing. We are also activating additional trial sites and continue to screen patients. After completing sequential dosing of the first two patients, we have commenced parallel patient dosing in the RUBY trial and are on track to dose 20 total patients by the end of 2023. We expect to provide clinical updates from the RUBY trial in mid-2023 and end of 2023. We also are on track to dose the first patient in the EDITHAL trial in the first quarter of 2023, and expect to provide data on this patient by the end of 2023.
In Vivo Gene Editing Medicines
We seek to additionally develop targeted in vivo gene editing medicines, initially focused on HSCs but expanding to other organs and tissues in the future. Initial clinical data from our ex vivo EDIT-301 program demonstrated successful hemoglobin induction, creating a foundation for development of in vivo HSC gene editing medicines. We believe that the ability to edit HSCs directly in patients without transplantation will allow the treatment of larger patient populations due to the elimination of the current myeloablative conditioning requirement, enabling access to such a product across health systems with a lower burden on patients and treatment centers. We are also in the discovery stage in developing in vivo gene editing medicines for other organs and tissues.
We previously achieved human proof of concept for our most advanced in vivo gene editing medicine for inherited retinal diseases (“IRDs”), EDIT-101. EDIT-101 is designed to treat a specific genetic form of retinal degeneration called Leber congenital amaurosis 10 (“LCA10”), a CEP290-related retinal degenerative disorder. EDIT-101 uses an AAV5 vector to deliver the DNA encoding SaCas9 and two guide RNAs to photoreceptor cells in the eye. In mid-2019, we initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of EDIT-101, referred to as the BRILLIANCE trial, which was designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of EDIT-101 in up to five cohorts of patients. In November 2022, we announced clinical data from the trial, including safety and efficacy data from all 14 patients treated in the study to that date. EDIT-101 was tolerated with no ocular serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities observed. Most adverse events were mild and expected for subretinal delivery. Three out of 14 treated subjects met a responder threshold having experienced clinically meaningful improvements in best corrected visual acuity and demonstrated consistent improvements in two of the following three additional endpoints: full field sensitivity test, visual function navigation course, or the visual function quality of life. Two of the three responders were homozygous for IVS26 mutation. Despite this proof of concept, we were not able to identify any baseline characteristics of the treatment responder patients that could pre-select a responder patient population other than zygosity, or the degree to which both copies of a chromosome or gene have the same genetic sequence. Since LCA10 patients homozygous for CEP290 IVS26 mutation represent an estimated population of approximately 300 in the United States, we paused further patient enrollment in the trial and determined not to progress the program independently. We have also terminated our AAV IRD platform, including EDIT-103 for the treatment of rhodopsin-assoiated autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa, and are seeking to divest those assets.
Partnerships
Through new and existing partnerships, we are also progressing multiple cellular therapy medicines for the treatment of different cancers. In our collaboration with BMS, we are researching and developing engineered alpha-beta T cell therapies to treat solid and liquid tumors leveraging our platform technologies, including Cas9 and AsCas12a. Engineered T cells, including alpha-beta T cells, have shown encouraging clinical activity against multiple cancers, culminating in recent approvals of such therapies in the United States. Because of these promising results, there is significant interest in the medical community in expanding the application of this technology across a broader range of cancers and patients. We believe that our genome editing technology has the potential to improve multiple properties of these alpha-beta T cell therapies. Alpha-beta cells are part of the adaptive immune system and recognize tumors with endogenous alpha-beta T cell receptors or CARs or engineered T cell receptors (“eTCRs”). If we are successful, genome-edited engineered alpha-beta T cells have the potential to significantly expand the types of cancers treatable by CAR/ eTCR alpha-beta T cells and to improve the outcomes of these therapies. Through our collaboration with BMS, we have applied our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies to multiple gene targets in order to improve the efficacy and safety of CAR/eTCR alpha-beta T cells directed against a range of tumor types. In addition, we have optimized
12
Table of Contents
genome editing components and delivery methods compatible with engineered alpha-beta T cell manufacturing methods developed by BMS. To date, this collaboration has resulted in 11 programs. We are also leveraging our AsCas12a technology in a non-exclusive collaboration with Immatics N.V. to advance gamma-delta T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer.
Our Collaborations and Licensing Strategy
BMS Collaboration and License Agreement
In May 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Juno Therapeutics, a subsidiary of BMS, for the research and development of engineered T cells with CARs and eTCRs that have been genetically modified to recognize and kill other cells. We and BMS amended and restated this agreement in May 2018 and November 2019 (the “BMS Collaboration Agreement”) and, in connection with the amendment and restatement in November 2019, we entered into a license agreement with BMS (such agreement, the “BMS License Agreement,” and together with the BMS Collaboration Agreement, the “BMS Agreements”). Under the terms of the BMS Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $25.0 million, amendment fees totaling $75.0 million and have received milestone payments totaling $20.0 million, in addition to certain opt-in fees.
The BMS Agreements relate to technology used to edit or modify the genome of a cell in connection with the research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of T cells that express or have ever expressed T cell receptor dimers consisting of an alpha (α) chain and a beta (β) chain (such cells, “Alpha-beta T Cells”), and T cells derived from pluripotent stem cells or any other precursor cell (such cells, “Other Derived T Cells”), subject to certain exclusions for certain of our existing obligations. The exploitation of Alpha-beta T Cells and Other Derived T Cells specifically excludes the exploitation of T Cells that express a T cell receptor dimer consisting of a gamma (γ) chain and a delta (δ) chain, which we refer to as gamma-delta T Cells.
During the research term under the BMS Collaboration Agreement, we may research ribonucleoprotein complexes comprising an RNA-guided engineered nuclease paired with an oligonucleotide (“RNP Complexes”) that recognize or modulate the expression of up to twenty gene targets selected by BMS (each, a “Research Program”) for the purpose of identifying the RNP Complexes that may be used in the creation of potential drug development candidates. The initial research term is five years from the November 2019 effective date of the BMS Collaboration Agreement. BMS may extend the research term for up to two one-year periods upon written notice to us and payment to us of a mid to high single digit million-dollar payment upon each extension. BMS ’ right to extend the research term for the second one-year period is subject to our consent.
Under the BMS Collaboration Agreement, if BMS elects to opt-in with respect to a Research Program, it shall make a mid-six digit dollar payment to us and we shall amend the BMS License Agreement to include such Research Program by executing a licensed program addendum for such Research Program. Following BMS ’ opt-in for each program we shall grant to BMS an exclusive (even as to us), royalty-bearing worldwide right and license under specified intellectual property rights to research, develop, manufacture commercialize or otherwise exploit the RNP Complexes in such Research Program to create products containing, incorporating, comprising or containing Alpha-beta T Cells and/or Other Derived T Cells, in each case modified using the RNP Complexes in such Research Program (each, a “ BMS Licensed Product”).
We are entitled to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentage royalties on net sales made by BMS , its affiliates and sublicensees of any BMS Licensed Products, subject to reductions in certain circumstances. We are also entitled to receive development milestones totaling up to $135.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain clinical milestones and specified regulatory approvals and commercial milestone payments totaling up to $60.0 million in the aggregate for each of the first two BMS Licensed Products to achieve specified net sales milestones.
We have agreed during the term of the BMS Collaboration Agreement not to use (directly or indirectly), or license others to use, genome editing technology in connection with any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of any Alpha-beta T Cells or Other Derived T Cells. Our exclusivity obligation will not apply to activities related to (i) any identified RNP Complexes in a program for which BMS elects not to
13
Table of Contents
exercise its opt-in right, (ii) certain of our existing obligations to third parties, and (iii) certain existing programs of an acquiror of our company in a change of control.
We have agreed during the term of any licensed program addendum under the BMS License Agreement not to use (directly or indirectly), or license others to use, any genome editing technology that modulates or recognizes a gene target covered by such licensed program addendum for the conduct of any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation with respect to any product that constitutes, incorporates, comprises or contains any Alpha-beta T Cell or Other Derived T Cells.
The BMS Collaboration Agreement continues in effect until the later of expiration of the research term or expiration of the last to expire of BMS ’ right to opt-in with respect to any Research Program. BMS may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement in its discretion upon six months’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party.
The BMS License Agreement continues in effect on a BMS Licensed Product-by- BMS Licensed Product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the royalty term with respect to such licensed product in such country and in its entirety upon the expiration of all royalty terms with respect to all BMS Licensed Products in all countries. BMS may terminate the BMS License Agreement in its entirety or on a BMS Licensed Product-by- BMS Licensed Product basis in its discretion upon ninety days’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS License Agreement on a BMS Licensed Product-by- BMS Licensed Product basis in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party. We have the right to terminate the BMS License Agreement on a program-by-program basis in the event that BMS fails to make any undisputed payment to us and has not cured such payment breach within the cure period. Other than BMS ’ right to wind-down its operations with respect to BMS Licensed Products during the twelve months following the date of effectiveness of termination, all licenses and other exclusive rights granted under the BMS License Agreement shall terminate.
Allergan Agreement
In March 2017, we entered into a strategic alliance and option agreement with Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited (together with its affiliates, “Allergan”) to discover, develop, and commercialize new gene editing medicines for a range of ocular disorders. Pursuant to this agreement, we granted Allergan an exclusive option to exclusively license from us up to five collaboration development programs for the treatment of ocular disorders .
Allergan was acquired by AbbVie Inc. in May 2020. On August 5, 2020, we entered into a termination agreement with Allergan pursuant to which, among other things, we and Allergan terminated the strategic alliance and option agreement and the co-development and commercialization agreement. As a result of the termination of our collaboration with Allergan, we regained full global rights to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize our ocular product candidates, including EDIT-101 for the treatment of LCA10. Under the termination agreement, Allergan granted us a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing right and license, including the right to grant sublicenses (through multiple tiers), to certain Allergan know-how that is necessary to develop, manufacture and commercialize EDIT-101. In addition, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a product directed to each of four collaboration targets, one of which is LCA10. Under this agreement, we will make certain payments on achievements of clinical and regulatory milestones up to $20.0 million for each target program and aggregated sales milestones for all products covered by the termination agreement up to $90.0 million. We are also obligated to pay royalties in a low-single digit percentage, subject to reduction under specified circumstances, on net sales of specified products. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis upon the later of the expiration of regulatory-based exclusivity with respect to such product in such country and the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product.
14
Table of Contents
Intellectual Property Licenses
We are a party to a number of license agreements under which we license patents, patent applications, and other intellectual property from third parties. The licensed intellectual property covers, in part, CRISPR-related compositions of matter and their use for genome editing. These licenses impose various diligence and financial payment obligations on us. We expect to continue to enter into these types of license agreements in the future. We consider the following license agreements to be material to our business.
The Broad Institute and President and Fellows of Harvard College License Agreement
In October 2014, we entered into a license agreement with The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”), for specified patent rights. In December 2016, we amended and restated this license agreement and further amended the agreement in March 2017 (as amended, the “Cas9-I License Agreement”). Among other things, the Cas9-I License Agreement amended the original license agreement by excluding additional fields from the scope of the exclusive license granted to us; converting the exclusive license to three specified targets to a non-exclusive license, subject to specified limitations; revising certain provisions relating to the rights of Harvard and Broad to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license; and providing Harvard and Broad with certain rights to designate, and reserve all rights to, gene targets for which the designating institution has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us. The licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement include rights to certain patents solely owned by Harvard (the “Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights”), certain patents co-owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Broad, certain patents co-owned by MIT, The Rockefeller University (“Rockefeller”), and Broad, and certain patents co-owned by MIT, Broad and Harvard. We refer to all the patents and patent applications licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement as the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights.
Certain patent applications in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are jointly owned by Rockefeller. In February 2017, Broad and Rockefeller entered into an inter-institutional agreement pursuant to which Rockefeller authorized Broad to act as its sole and exclusive agent for the purposes of licensing Rockefeller’s rights in such Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and any additional related patents or patent applications that Rockefeller may jointly own with Broad. The March 2017 amendment to the Cas9-I License Agreement included a license to Rockefeller’s rights in such patents and patent applications.
The Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are directed, in part, to certain CRISPR/Cas9 compositions of matter and their use for genome editing and to certain CRISPR/Cas9 related delivery technologies. Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, and as of December 31, 2022, we have certain rights under 71 U.S. patents, 50 pending U.S. patent applications, 33 European patents and related validations, 23 pending European patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States and Europe.
Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, have sold, import, and export products and services in the field of the prevention and treatment of human disease, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The exclusive license granted by Broad and Harvard excludes certain fields, including the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans; the research, development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications; plant-based agricultural products; and, subject to certain limitations, products providing nutritional benefits. Moreover, the license granted by Broad is non-exclusive with respect to the treatment of medullary cystic kidney disease 1 and three other specified targets, subject to the limitation that for such three targets, each of Broad and Harvard is only permitted to grant a non-exclusive license to one third party at a time with respect to each such target within the field of exclusive license granted to us. Harvard and Broad also granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for all purposes, with the exception that the non-exclusive license to certain Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights excludes the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans and the development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications. In addition to the exclusions described
15
Table of Contents
above, the following are excluded from the scope of both the exclusive and non-exclusive licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement: human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.
We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize products for the prevention or treatment of human disease under the Cas9-I License Agreement. Also, we are required to achieve certain development milestones within specified time periods for products incorporating the technologies covered by the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights. Harvard and Broad have the right to terminate our license with respect to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights covering the technology or technologies with respect to which we fail to achieve these development milestones.
The licenses granted by Broad and Harvard to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and the rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for research, educational, or teaching purposes. In addition, certain rights granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are further subject to a non-exclusive license to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for research purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.
We have the right to sublicense our licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cas9-I License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad and Harvard. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify Harvard, Broad, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute according to the same terms as are provided in the Cas9-I License Agreement and a statement that Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.
Under the agreement, Harvard and Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties, other than specified entities, that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Harvard and Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Harvard and Broad under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad may notify us of the request (the “Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests”). Our process to address Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests has been conformed to the same process established in our Cpf1 license agreement described below.
The Cas9-I License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, after a specified period of time and subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with an affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cas9-I License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target and our license granted with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cas9-I License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to that gene target.
16
Table of Contents
Under the Cas9-I License Agreement, we paid Broad and Harvard an upfront license fee in the low six figures and issued a single-digit percentage of shares of our common stock to Broad (with Broad holding a right to request re-issuance to its designees, including MIT or MIT’s designee) and Harvard. We also must pay an annual license maintenance fee ranging from the low- to mid-five figures to the low-six figures, depending on the calendar year. This annual license maintenance fee is creditable against royalties owed on licensed products and services in the same year as the maintenance fee is paid. We are obligated to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, including expenses associated with any interference proceedings in the USPTO, any opposition proceedings in the EPO, or any other inter partes or other post grant proceedings in these or other jurisdictions where we are seeking patent protection. Therefore, we are obligated to reimburse Broad and/or Harvard for expenses associated with the interference and opposition proceedings involving patents licensed to us under this agreement (described in more detail under “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property—Some of Our In-Licensed Patents are Subject to Priority and Validity Disputes” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K).
Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $14.8 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement, these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $4.1 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States and at least one jurisdiction outside the United States for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts fewer than a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States or a specified number of patients per year in the United States, which we refer to as an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.
Broad and Harvard, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from low single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other licensed products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the licensed product and licensed service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our licensed products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Harvard and Broad in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights that cover the composition, manufacture, or use of each covered product or service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the licensed product or licensed service. If we sublicense any of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to a third party pursuant to our exclusive license under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Broad and Harvard, collectively, had the right to receive a low to mid double-digit percentage of the sublicense income, which percentage decreased to a low double-digit percentage in 2018 and may still decrease to a low of a high single-digit percentage for licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease under sublicenses executed after we meet a certain clinical milestone.
Broad and Harvard retain control of the prosecution of their respective patent rights. If an interference is declared or a derivation proceeding is initiated, with respect to any Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, then our prosecution related rights, including our right to receive correspondence from a patent office, will be suspended with respect to the patent rights involved in the interference or derivation proceeding until, under some circumstances, we enter into a common interest agreement with that institution. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for the cost of such interference or derivation proceeding. We are responsible for the cost of the interference proceeding and appeal with respect to these patents and this patent application. Broad and Harvard are required to maintain any application or patent within the Harvard/Broad Patents Rights so long as we meet our obligation to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses
17
Table of Contents
related to prosecution and there is a good faith basis for doing so. If we cease payment for the prosecution of any Harvard/Broad Patent Right, then any license granted to us with respect to such Harvard/Broad Patent Right will terminate.
We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and Harvard with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad and Harvard (and MIT and Rockefeller, if applicable). Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between us, Broad, and Harvard.
Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad and Harvard. Broad and Harvard may terminate the agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of our uncured material breach, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Both Broad and Harvard may terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Harvard/Broad Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency. Neither Broad nor Harvard acting alone has the right to terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement. However, Broad and Harvard may separately terminate the licenses granted to us with respect to their respective patent rights upon the occurrence of the same events that would give rise to the right of both institutions acting collectively to terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement.
The Broad Institute—Cpf1 License Agreement
In December 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Broad, for specified patent rights (“Cpf1 Patent Rights”) related primarily to Cas12a compositions of matter and their use for gene editing (as amended, the “Cpf1 License Agreement”). Pursuant to the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad, on behalf of itself, Harvard, MIT, Wageningen University (“Wageningen”), and the University of Tokyo (“Tokyo” and collectively with the other institutions, the “Cpf1 Institutions”) granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights, to make, have made, use, have used, sell, offer for sale, have sold, export and import products solely in the field of the prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy, editing of genetic material, or targeting of genetic material, subject to certain limitations and retained rights (collectively, the “Exclusive Cpf1 Field”), as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights for all other purposes, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement exclude certain fields, including human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.
Tokyo and the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) are joint owners on certain Cpf1 Patent Rights. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not, and does not purport to, grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof.
Pursuant to the Cpf1 License Agreement, and as of December 31, 2022, we have certain rights under 7 U.S. patents, 12 pending U.S. patent applications, 5 European patents and related validations, 6 pending European patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States and Europe.
We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field. We are also required to achieve certain development milestones within specified time periods for products covered by the Cpf1 Patent Rights, with Broad having the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement if we fail to achieve these milestones within the required time periods. We have the right to sublicense our
18
Table of Contents
licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cpf1 License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify the Cpf1 Institutions according to the same terms as are provided in the Cpf1 License Agreement and a statement that the Cpf1 Institutions are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.
The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Cpf1 Patent Rights and rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Cpf1 Patent Rights for research, teaching, or educational purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions for themselves and any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Cpf1 Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.
Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Cpf1 Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Broad (a “Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request”), Broad may notify us of such request. A Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request must be accompanied by a research, development and commercialization plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, including evidence that the third party has, or reasonably expects to have, access to any necessary intellectual property and funding. Broad may not grant a Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request (i) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators are researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed to the same gene target that is the subject of the Cpf1Third Party Proposed Product Request (“Cpf1 Licensee Product”) and we can demonstrate such ongoing efforts to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction, or (ii) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates or sublicensees, wish to do so either alone or with a collaboration partner, and we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product nor able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad may grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license to the third party on a gene target-by-gene target basis.
The Cpf1 License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with a Cpf1 Institution, affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cpf1 License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target, our license with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cpf1 License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target.
Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, we paid Broad and Wageningen an aggregate upfront license fee in the mid seven digits and issued to Broad and Wageningen promissory notes (the “Initial Promissory Notes”) in an aggregate principal amount of $10.0 million, which we settled in full in 2017. Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $20.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control
19
Table of Contents
during the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement, certain of these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $6.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union and Japan for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.
Broad and Wageningen, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from sub single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the product and service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Cpf1 Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Broad and Wageningen in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights that covers each licensed product or licensed service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the product or service. If we sublicense any of the Cpf1 Patent Rights to a third party, Broad and Wageningen, collectively, have the right to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentages of the sublicense income, depending on the stage of development of the products or services in question at the time of the sublicense.
Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad and Wageningen are also entitled, collectively, to receive success payments in the event our market capitalization reaches specified thresholds ascending from a high nine digit dollar amount to $10.0 billion (“Market Cap Success Payments”) or sale of our company for consideration in excess of those thresholds, (“Company Sale Success Payments,” which with the Market Cap Success Payments, the “Success Payments”). Market Cap Success Payments are payable by us in cash, in shares of our common stock, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, or in the form of promissory notes (the “Promissory Notes”). The Promissory Notes bear interest at 4.8% per annum. Principal and interest on the Promissory Notes are payable on, subject to certain exceptions, 150 days following issuance (or if earlier, a specified period of time following a sale of our company). We could elect to make any payment of amounts outstanding under the Promissory Notes either in the form of cash or, subject to certain conditions, in shares of our common stock of equal value, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. In the event of a change of control of our company or a sale of our company, we are required to pay all remaining principal and accrued interest on the Promissory Notes in cash within a specified period following such event. Following a change in control of our company, Market Cap Success Payments are required to be made in cash. Company Sale Success Payments are payable solely in cash. In 2017, two Market Cap Success Payments of $5.0 million each became due and payable and we issued Promissory Notes in such amounts, which we fully settled by issuing shares of our common stock in 2017 and 2018. In December 2020, an additional Market Cap Success Payment of $15.0 million became due and payable, which we settled through the issuance of shares of our common stock in January 2021. The remaining Success Payments that may be paid to Broad and Wageningen range from a low-eight digit dollar amount to a mid-eight digit dollar amount, and collectively will not exceed, in aggregate, $100.0 million, which maximum would be payable only if we achieve a market capitalization threshold of $10.0 billion and have at least one product candidate covered by a claim of a patent right licensed to us under either the Cpf1 License Agreement or the Cas9-I License Agreement that is or was the subject of a clinical trial pursuant to development efforts by us or any of our affiliates or sublicensees.
In addition, in the event that a sale of our company or change of control has occurred and the maximum amount of potential Success Payments under the Cpf1 License Agreement has not been paid to Broad and Wageningen, Broad and Wageningen are entitled to receive, upon the subsequent achievement of specified regulatory milestones,
20
Table of Contents
percentages ranging from high single digits to mid-to-low double digits of the remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments. Broad and Wageningen are further entitled to receive up to the full remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments upon the subsequent achievement of specified sales milestones. All such post-sale or post-change of control milestone payments are required to be made in cash.
Broad retains control of the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights. We have the right to provide input in the prosecution of the Cpf1 Patent Rights, including to direct Broad to file and prosecute patents in certain countries. We are also obligated to reimburse Broad and Wageningen for all unreimbursed expenses incurred by them in connection with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights prior to the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement, and to reimburse Broad for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights following the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement.
We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Cpf1 Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and the applicable Cpf1 Institutions with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad. Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between Broad, Wageningen, and us.
Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad. Either party may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach of a material obligation, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Broad may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Cpf1 Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency.
Other Broad Agreements
In addition to the Cas9-I License Agreement and the Cpf1 License Agreement, in December 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Broad for certain Cas9 compositions of matter and their use for gene editing (the “Cas9-II Agreement”), and, in December 2018, we entered into a Sponsored Research Agreement with Broad providing for Broad to conduct research useful or relevant to genome editing in the field of genomic medicines for the prevention of treatment of human diseases with funding from us (the “Sponsored Research Agreement”). Under the Cas9-II Agreement and the Sponsored Research Agreement, we have potential obligations with respect to success payments, which are described in Note 8 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Intellectual Property
Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our platform technology, programs, and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our platform technology, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.
21
Table of Contents
Our in-licensed patents and patent applications cover various aspects of our genome editing platform technology, including CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases and Cas9 PAM variants, self-inactivating forms of Cas9, Cas9 nickases, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs, including guide nucleic acids containing both DNA and RNA components. We also have filed patent applications and have in-licensed rights to filed patent applications directed to each of the four components of our genome editing platform technology. We intend to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use, and process claims, directed to each component of our platform technology. We also intend to obtain rights to existing delivery technologies through one or more licenses from third parties.
Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Moreover, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug or a method for using it may be extended.
CRISPR
As of December 31, 2022, we owned 24 U.S. patents, 69 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 14 European patents and related validations, 63 pending European patent applications, 10 pending U.S. provisional patent applications, seven pending PCT patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology and which include claims directed to our genome editing platform, including our directed editing component, as well as composition of matter and method of use claims for our therapeutic programs. Four of these U.S. patents, one of these European patents and their U.S., European and foreign counterpart applications are co-owned with Broad and Iowa and we have obtained an exclusive license to such co-ownership rights from these third parties in the field of prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy or genome editing. In addition, 13 of these pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications are co-owned with certain of our collaborators because they encompass inventions developed under our collaborations. Our current issued U.S. patents, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2034 and 2038, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2035 and 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.
As of December 31, 2022, we in-licensed 114 U.S. patents, 54 European patents and related validations, and approximately 430 pending patent applications, including 86 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 52 pending European patent applications, and other related patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology collectively from various universities and institutions. The patents and patent applications outside of the United States and Europe are held primarily in Canada, Japan, and Australia, although some of our in-licensed patent families were filed in a larger number of countries. The claims from our in-licensed portfolio include claims to compositions of matter, methods of use, and certain processes.
22
Table of Contents
These include claims directed to CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including Cas9 nickases, S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases, Cas9 PAM variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas9, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs. Our current in-licensed U.S. patents, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2033 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2034 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.
Our in-licensed patents and patent applications claim the inventions of investigators at various universities and institutions and the majority of these licensed patents and patent applications are licensed on an exclusive basis. The exclusive licenses are, in some cases, limited to certain technical fields. Certain U.S. patent applications licensed to us by Broad include Tokyo and NIH as joint applicants. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not and does not purport to grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof. For more information regarding these license agreements, please see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “Business —Intellectual Property Licenses.”
Trademarks
As of December 31, 2022, our registered trademark portfolio consisted of registrations in the United States for EDITAS, EDITAS in Stylized Letters and the Infinity Logo, registrations in Australia, China, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for EDITAS, registrations in Australia, China, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for the Infinity Logo, registrations in the European Union and United Kingdom for UDITAS, registrations in the European Union, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for SLEEK, and registrations in Australia, the European Union and United Kingdom for the Double Helix Design.
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy, genome editing and cell therapy fields, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology companies, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies may become available in the future.
We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that utilize technologies encompassing genomic medicines to create therapies, including genome editing and gene therapy. There are additional companies that are working to develop therapies in areas related to our research programs. Our platform and product focus is the development of therapies using CRISPR technology specifically for genome editing. Other companies developing CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology or therapies using CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology include Artisan Bio, Caribou Biosciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, EdiGene, ERS Genomics, Excision Biotherapeutics, Graphite Bio, Inscripta, Intellia Therapeutics, Sigma-Aldrich, ToolGen, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In addition, there have been and may continue to be discoveries of new CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. There are additional companies developing therapies using related CRISPR genome editing technologies, including other CRISPR nucleases, base editing, prime editing and gene writing. These companies include Arbor Biotechnologies, Beam Therapeutics, Chroma Medicine, Emendo Biotherapeutics, Integra Therapeutics, KSQ Therapeutics, Locus Biosciences, Mammoth Biosciences, Metagenomi, Poseida Therapeutics, Prime Medicine, Scribe Therapeutics, Tessera Therapeutics, Tome Biosciences, Tune Therapeutics, and Verve Therapeutics. There are also companies developing therapies using transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, Mega- TALs and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include 2Seventy Bio, Allogene Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, Precision Biosciences, and Sangamo Therapeutics.
23
Table of Contents
In addition to competition from other genome editing therapies, gene therapies or cell medicine therapies, any products that we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, protein, oligonucleotide, or ribonucleic acid therapies. There are also companies developing therapies related to our development programs. For hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Acceleron Pharma, Aruvant Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Cellectis, CRISPR Therapeutics, EdiGene, Global Blood Therapeutics, Graphite Bio, Intellia Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals.
In addition, many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, may have greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, and availability of reimbursement.
If our current programs are approved for the indications for which we are currently planning clinical trials, they may compete with other products currently under development, including genome editing and gene therapy products. Competition with other related products currently under development may include competition for clinical trial sites, patient recruitment, and product sales.
Manufacturing
We currently perform some manufacturing activities such as the production of RNP Complexes for our various internal programs, as well as cell processing for EDIT-301. We may also agree to produce RNP Complexes for our partners. These activities are performed on site at our existing facilities or at current good manufacturing practice-compliant space leased by us. We contract with third parties for the manufacturing of all other materials for preclinical studies and our clinical trials. We have limited manufacturing operations and do not own or operate any substantial manufacturing facilities for large-scale production of our program materials. While we have limited early-phase clinical manufacturing capabilities, we currently have no plans to build our own late-stage clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. The use of contracted manufacturing and reliance on collaboration partners is relatively cost-efficient and has eliminated the need for substantial direct investment in manufacturing facilities and additional staff early in development. Although we rely on contract manufacturers, we have personnel with manufacturing experience to oversee our contract manufacturers. We expect third-party manufacturers to be capable of providing sufficient quantities of our program materials to meet anticipated needs for preclinical studies and clinical trials. To meet our projected needs for commercial manufacturing, third parties with whom we currently work might need to increase their scale of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers. We believe that there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our preclinical, clinical, and commercial requirements, although we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships with such sources, if necessary, would not result in significant delay or material additional costs.
Commercialization
We currently intend to build the commercial infrastructure in the United States and Europe necessary to effectively support the commercialization of all of our programs, if and when we first believe a regulatory approval of a product candidate under one of our programs in a particular geographic market appears probable. The commercial infrastructure for orphan products typically consists of a targeted, specialty sales force that calls on a limited and focused
24
Table of Contents
group of physicians supported by sales management, medical liaisons, internal sales support, an internal marketing group, and distribution support.
Additional capabilities important to the orphan marketplace include the management of key accounts such as managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations, specialty pharmacies, and government accounts. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure, we will have to invest significant amounts of financial and management resources, some of which will be committed prior to any confirmation that any product candidate we may develop will be approved.
Outside of the United States and Europe, where appropriate, we may elect in the future to utilize strategic partners, distributors, or contract sales forces to assist in the commercialization of our products. In certain instances, we may consider building our own commercial infrastructure.
As product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. In particular, some of our research programs target potentially larger indications. Data, the size of the development programs, the size of the target market, the size of a commercial infrastructure, and manufacturing needs may all influence our strategies in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world.
Government Regulation and Licensure of Products
Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, sales, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States
In the United States, our candidate products would be regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations and guidances. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and their approval by regulatory authorities, is generally referred to as a sponsor. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject a sponsor to delays in the conduct of the study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.
A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:
● preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies all performed in accordance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and standards;
● completion of the manufacture, under current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) conditions, of the drug substance and drug product that the sponsor intends to use in human clinical trials along with required analytical and stability testing;
● design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND application for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
● approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;
25
Table of Contents
● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety, potency, and purity of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”);
● preparation and submission to the FDA of a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) for a biologic product requesting marketing for one or more proposed indications, including submission of detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product in clinical development and proposed labelling;
● review of the product by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;
● satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity, and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practice (“GTP”) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;
● satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of clinical data in support of the BLA;
● payment of user Prescription Drug User Free Act (“PDUFA”) securing FDA approval of the BLA and licensure of the new biologic product; and
● compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) and any post-approval studies required by the FDA.
Preclinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application
Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, including a gene therapy product candidate, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.
An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence.
As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical studies in a timely manner.
26
Table of Contents
Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use
Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.
When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.
There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests, it must make that policy publicly available. Although these requirements were rolled out over time, they have now come into full effect. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.
In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.
Human Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the FDA requires that such trials be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for clinical trials in the United States.
27
Table of Contents
Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. These reports must include a development safety update report, or DSUR. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.
Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (“DSMB”). This group may recommend continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated check points based on certain available data from the study to which only the DSMB has access. Finally, research activities involving infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, recombinant DNA, and genetically altered organisms and agents may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules.
Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.
● Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or, on occasion, in patients, such as patients suffering from LCA10, sickle cell disease or cancer.
● Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials.
● Phase 3 clinical trials may proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a biologic; such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”
In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.
28
Table of Contents
In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.
Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017, and both NIH and the FDA have recently signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. The failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to HHS’s long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA has issued several Notices of Noncompliance to manufacturers since April 2021.
Pediatric Studies
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, a BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.
For products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan.
The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease.
Special Regulations and Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products
It is possible that the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any CRISPR product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point. The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and which are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms. The products may be used to modify cells in vivo or transferred to cells ex vivo prior to administration to the recipient.
29
Table of Contents
Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products. Within the CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. The NIH, including its Novel and Exceptional Technology Research Advisory Committee (“NExTRAC”), also advises the FDA on gene therapy issues and other issues related to emerging biotechnologies. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols.
The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies, including recent final guidance documents released in January 2020 relating to chemistry, manufacturing and controls information for gene therapy INDs, long-term follow-up after the administration of gene therapy products, gene therapies for rare diseases and gene therapies for retinal disorders, as well as draft guidance in January 2021 for Human Gene Therapy for Neurodegenerative Diseases. Although the FDA has indicated that these and other guidance documents it previously issued are not legally binding, compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any gene therapy product candidate. The guidance documents provide additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.
Until 2019, most gene therapy clinical trials required pre-review by the predecessor of NExTRAC before being submitted for approval by the IRBs and any local biosafety boards. In 2019, the NIH eliminated the pre-review process and going forward, the review of future gene therapy clinical trial protocols would be largely handled by IRBs. Furthermore, in 2019, the NIH removed from public access the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System database, which previously contained substantial amounts of safety and other patient information regarding human gene therapy studies performed to date.
Compliance with cGMP and GTP Requirements
Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.
For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with GTP. These standards are found in FDA regulations and guidances that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.
Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request,
30
Table of Contents
electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.
The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
Submission and Filing of a BLA
The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting license to market the product. The BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2023 is approximately $3.25 million for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of a licensed BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2023 is more than $394,000. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor.
On the other hand, once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the sponsor, and six months for a priority review of the application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.
Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with a BLA submission, including component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.
In connection with its review of a BLA, the FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
31
Table of Contents
The FDA’s Decision on a BLA
Under the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure, and potent and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure, and potent.
On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter (“CRL”), which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a CRL may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or Class 2. The classification of a resubmission is based on the information submitted by a sponsor in response to an action letter. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has two months to review a Class 1 resubmission and six months to review a Class 2 resubmission. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in the complete response letter have been addressed.
If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
Expedited Review Programs
The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs, however, changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.
● Fast Track designation : Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.
● Breakthrough Therapy designation. To qualify for the Breakthrough Therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.
32
Table of Contents
● Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.
● Accelerated approval. Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening conditions and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.
With passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed; and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval.
● Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to Breakthrough Therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.
Post-Approval Regulation
If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.
A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release,
33
Table of Contents
the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
● restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
● fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
● refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
● product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
● injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic.
It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.
If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.
34
Table of Contents
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.
Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.
A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.
If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. In particular, the concept of what constitutes the “same drug” for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA has recently issued guidance indicating it would consider two gene therapy products for the same indication to be different, thus each eligible for orphan drug exclusivity, if they express different transgenes or have or use different vectors, so long as those differences are not “minor .” The FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing sameness. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.
The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. The FDA cannot, however, approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.
In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.
Pediatric Exclusivity
Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory
35
Table of Contents
exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.
Biosimilars and Exclusivity
The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”). The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars and the first interchangeable biosimilar product was approved on July 30, 2021, and a second product previously approved as a biosimilar was designated as interchangeable in October 2021. The FDA has also issued numerous guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and licensing biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars under the PHSA, including a draft guidance issued in November 2020 that seeks to provide additional clarity to manufacturers of interchangeable biosimilars.
Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product.
Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products.
Patent Term Restoration and Extension
A patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for
36
Table of Contents
which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.
FDA Approval of Companion Diagnostics
In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the drug therapeutic and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.
The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.
In April 2020, the FDA issued additional guidance which describes considerations for the development and labeling of companion diagnostic devices to support the indicated uses of multiple drug or biological oncology products, when appropriate. This guidance builds upon existing policy regarding the labeling of companion diagnostics. In its 2014 guidance, the FDA stated that if evidence is sufficient to conclude that the companion diagnostic is appropriate for use with a specific group of therapeutic products, the companion diagnostic’s intended use/indications for use should name the specific group of therapeutic products, rather than specific products. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)).
Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.
The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval (“PMA”) simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2023, the standard fee is $441,547 and the small business fee is $110,387.
After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing
37
Table of Contents
processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.
Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union
In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.
Clinical Trial Approval
Before the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, or the Clinical Trials Regulation, came into application in January 2022, requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union, or EU, were set forth in Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP. This system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, a sponsor must obtain approval from the competent national authority of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.
In April 2014, the Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, or the Clinical Trials Regulation, was adopted. The Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.
The Clinical Trials Regulation came into application in all the EU Member States on January 31, 2022, repealing Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. According to the transitional provisions, if a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable, the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.
Parties conducting certain clinical studies must, as in the U.S., post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.
38
Table of Contents
PRIME Designation in the EU
In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.
Pediatric Studies
Sponsors developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) with the EMA’s pediatric committee (“PDCO”), and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date.
Marketing Authorization
To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under the European Union regulatory system, a sponsor must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in European Union Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, a sponsor must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.
The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Manufacturers must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.
Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to EMA which provides an opinion regarding the
39
Table of Contents
application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.
Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.
Specialized Procedures for Gene Therapies
The grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for gene therapy products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC includes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.
Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union
In the European Union, new chemical entities approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.
Periods of Authorization and Renewals
A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the drug on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.
40
Table of Contents
Regulatory Requirements after Marketing Authorization
Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended.
Reimbursement and Pricing of Prescription Pharmaceuticals
In the E.U., similar political, economic and regulatory developments to those in the United States may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the U.S. and the E.U., reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the E.U., the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, pharmaceutical firms may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of the product to other available therapies.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the sponsor must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.
An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized European Union marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity.
41
Table of Contents
Pediatric Exclusivity
Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.
Patent Term Extensions in the European Union and Other Jurisdictions
The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining an SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. These periods can be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, (“the Agreement”), which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the EU and the UK will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the UK is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”), became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the UK covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the UK. For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our product candidates in the UK Until 31 December 2023, it is possible for the MHRA to rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure.
As with other issues related to Brexit, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the UK and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the UK. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the European Economic Area, or EEA, to the UK will remain lawful under GDPR. The United Kingdom government has already determined that it considers all European Union and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the European Union/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the UK as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the UK, although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future.
42
Table of Contents
General Data Protection Regulation
The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.
In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, (“CJEU”), invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EU to the United States. Additionally, in October 2022, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The EC initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022. It is unclear if and when the framework will be finalized and whether it will be challenged in court. The uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EU. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR, including in relation to data transfers.
Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. Even if any product candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such product candidates. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.
In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors
43
Table of Contents
will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.
The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.
In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries.
Healthcare Law and Regulation
Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors, and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching physicians and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:
● the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase,
44
Table of Contents
order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid;
● the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false, fictitious, or fraudulent or knowingly making, using, or causing to made or used a false record or statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;
● t he federal civil monetary penalty and false statement laws and regulations relating to pricing and submission of pricing information for government programs, including penalties for knowingly and intentionally overcharging 340b eligible entities and the submission of false or fraudulent pricing information to government entities;
● the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which created additional federal criminal laws that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;
● HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information;
● the federal false statements statute, which prohibits 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 health care benefits, items or services;
● the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making, or offering or promising to make improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or otherwise seeking favorable treatment;
● the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and
● analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.
Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
45
Table of Contents
Healthcare Reform
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.
By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the PPACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Under subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended and reduced through June 2022 with the full 2% cut resuming thereafter. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.
Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”), which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the PPACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed this action after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.
The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.
Pharmaceutical Prices
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and
46
Table of Contents
Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.
In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”), to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to January 1, 2026 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed until January 1, 2026 by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
More recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.
Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at 2,000 a year.
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any
47
Table of Contents
of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Federal and State Data Privacy Laws
There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.
In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities. In addition, other states, including Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut already have passed state privacy laws. Virginia’s privacy law also went into effect on January 1, 2023, and the laws in the other three states will go into effect later in the year. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be
48
Table of Contents
subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.
Additional Regulations
In addition to the foregoing, state, and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern the use, handling, and disposal of various biologic, chemical, and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. Equivalent laws have been adopted in third countries that impose similar obligations.
Human Capital
As of February 1, 2023, we had 226 full-time employees, including 113 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 140 employees are engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We anticipate that we will increase headcount in our manufacturing and clinical organizations as we accelerate the clinical development of EDIT-301 to treat SCD and TDT, and in our research organization to strengthen our discovery engine and technological capabilities.
At Editas, we seek to unlock the full potential of gene editing technology, and we recognize that our success is driven by our dynamic, passionate and diverse team. We work together with integrity, guided by our distinct culture, to develop transformative medicines for people living with serious diseases around the world. At the center of our culture are our core values, which guide and define the behaviors that make our culture unique and enable us to bring our best selves forward to achieve our mission of translating the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable or under-treated diseases :
● Engagement – We are active within our teams, Editas, and the broader community.
● Teamwork – We succeed together through collaboration, communication, and mutual respect.
● Drive – We are focused to urgently deliver transformative medicines to patients.
● Resilience – We adapt and learn from setbacks and proactively prepare for future challenges.
● Accountability – We hold ourselves, our teams, and Editas responsible for both our successes and failures.
Our Commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
We strongly believe that our greatest strength comes from the people who make up our team. Each employee brings diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and thinking styles, and, by embracing and celebrating these differences, we strengthen our culture and further our mission to pioneer a new field of genome editing. We are committed to preserving and further cultivating our diverse and inclusive workforce, including in our senior management team, to ensure an environment where employees feel empowered to achieve their fullest potential.
As of December 31, 2022, approximately 52% of our full-time employees were women and 48% of our senior management (director level and above) were women. As of December 31, 2022, approximately 45% of our full-time employees identify as racially/ethnically diverse and 33% of our senior management identify as racially/ethnically diverse.
49
Table of Contents
Recruitment, Retention and Development
Successful execution of our strategy is dependent on attracting, retaining and motivating a diverse team of highly skilled employees at all levels. We believe a key component of recruiting, retaining and motivating our employees is our total compensation package. For this reason, we provide employees with competitive compensation, including market-competitive salary and equity awards, along with competitive benefits packages, including medical, dental, vision and life insurance, an employee stock purchase plan, flexible spending accounts, short- and long-term disability and matching contributions to a 401(k) tax-deferred savings plan. We also provide annual cash incentive bonus opportunities that are tied to both company performance and individual performance to foster a pay-for-performance culture. We regularly benchmark these total rewards against our industry peers to ensure we remain competitive and attractive to potential new hires.
We believe that continued learning and development, training and other resources are also an essential part of retaining our employees and creating a culture of learning and leadership. We encourage our employees to participate and take advantage of a variety of learning and development resources, including online skills courses, professional development events, and external training programs based on individual needs. We have also implemented formal coaching and mentoring programs, which enable employees to connect with, and learn and develop from, individuals across our company.
Communication and Engagement
We recognize that our employees perform best when they know how their work contributes to our overall strategy. To achieve this, we emphasize open and direct communication through the use of a variety of channels, including quarterly all-company business updates from the senior management team, fireside chats with new members of the board of directors and our executive management team, open forums and company-wide written communications, and postings on our company intranet.
In addition, we periodically conduct employee surveys to gauge employee engagement and solicit feedback, and enhance our understanding of the views of our employees, work environment and culture. The results from engagement surveys are used to implement programs and processes designed to enhance employee engagement and improve the employee experience.
Health, Wellness and Safety
Employee safety and well-being is of paramount importance to us. In addition to traditional benefits such as healthcare, flexible time off, paid parental leave, and retirement benefits, we offer a variety of benefits and resources to support employees’ physical and mental health, including a lifestyle spending allowance that employees may allocate to certain wellness programs and a third-party employee assistance program, which help us both attract talent and help to realize a healthier workforce.
Our Corporate Information
We were incorporated under the name Gengine, Inc. as a Delaware corporation in September 2013, and we changed our name to Editas Medicine, Inc. in November 2013. Our principal executive offices are located at 11 Hurley St., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02141, and our telephone number is (617) 401-9000.
Available Information
We maintain an internet website at www.editasmedicine.com and make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.
50
Table of Contents
You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors & Media,” as a source of information about us.
The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.