Ernexa Therapeutics Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors Our business, financial condition and operating results can be affected by many factors, whether currently known or unknown, many of which are not exclusively within our control, including but not limited to those described below, any one or more of which could, directly or indirectly, cause our financial condition and operating results to differ materially from historical or anticipated future financial condition and operating results. Any of these factors, in whole or in part, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and stock price. We urge investors to carefully consider the risk factors described below in evaluating our stock and the information in this 2025 Annual Report, including the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Risks Related to our Business and Industry We will require substantial additional capital to fund our operations and execute our business strategy, and we may not be able to raise adequate capital on a timely basis, on favorable terms, or at all. Based on our current financial condition and forecasts of available cash, we will not have sufficient capital to fund our operations for the 12 months following the issuance date of the accompanying consolidated financial statements. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional capital when needed, on favorable terms, or at all. If we cannot raise capital when needed, on favorable terms or at all, we will need to reevaluate our planned operations and may need to reduce expenses, file for bankruptcy, reorganize, merge with another entity, or cease operations. If we become unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets, and might realize significantly less than the values at which they are carried on our financial statements, and stockholders may lose all or part of their investment in our common stock. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to: ● the timing, progress, costs and results of ERNA-101 and ERNA-201; ● the costs of any other product development programs we may initiate, including the costs to conduct the studies; ● the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; ● the pace and success of our potential strategic partners in co-developing our product candidates and the proceeds to us, if any, as a result; ● the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent claims and other intellectual property rights; ● the cost of defending potential intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions brought by third parties against us or any of our potential co-development strategic partners or collaborators; and ● the effect of competing market developments. We may seek to raise additional capital through a variety of means, including through equity, equity-linked or debt securities offerings, collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties. Our past success in raising capital through equity and convertible note offerings should not be viewed as an indication we will be successful in raising capital through those or any other means in the future. 13 To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity or equity-linked securities, existing stockholder ownership may experience substantial dilution, and the securities may include preferred shares with liquidation or other preferences that could harm the rights of a common stockholder. Servicing the interest and principal repayment obligations under any debt we incur will divert funds that might otherwise be available to support our operations. In addition, debt financing may involve covenants that restrict our ability to operate our business. To the extent we raise additional capital through arrangements with third parties, such arrangements would likely require us to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Unstable and unfavorable market and economic conditions may harm our ability to raise additional capital. An economic downturn, recession or recessionary concerns, increased inflation, rising interest rates, adverse developments affecting financial institutions or the financial services industry, or the occurrence or continued occurrence of events similar to those in recent years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or other public health emergencies, geopolitical conflict, natural/environmental disasters, terrorist attacks, strained relations between the U.S. and a number of other countries, social and political discord and unrest in the U.S. and other countries, and government shutdowns, among others, increase market volatility and have long-term adverse effects on the U.S. and global economies and financial markets. Volatility and deterioration in the financial markets and liquidity constraints or other adverse developments affecting financial institutions may make equity or debt financings more difficult, more costly or more dilutive and may increase competition for, or limit the availability of, funding from other third-party sources, such as from strategic collaborations. We cannot be certain that additional capital will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our business activities, or potentially discontinue operations altogether. In addition, attempting to secure additional capital may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm its ability to execute on our business strategy. We have incurred significant losses since our inception and expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited financial resources and substantial capital requirements, make it difficult to assess our prospects. We have incurred significant net losses since inception. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $245.6 million. Since inception, we have primarily financed our operations by raising capital through the sale of shares of our common stock, warrants to purchase shares of our common stock and convertible notes. We have not been profitable since we commenced operations and may never achieve profitability. If we do successfully obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, our revenue will be dependent upon, in part and among other things, the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of competitors in such markets, the accepted price for any such product candidate. If the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of any of our product candidates, even if approved. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely impact the market price of the common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations. We depend substantially, and expect in the future to continue to depend, on in-licensed intellectual property. Such licenses impose obligations on our business, and if we fail to comply with those obligations, we could lose license rights, which would substantially harm our business. We rely on patents, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from Factor Limited under the Factor L&C Agreement. We may in the future become party to additional license agreements pursuant to which we in-license key intellectual property. The Factor L&C Agreement imposes various sublicense fees and other obligations on us. For example, we paid Factor Limited $0.2 million per month for the first twelve months and $0.1 million per month for the first nine months toward patent costs. We are also obligated to pay certain milestone payments, royalty payments on net sales of commercialized products and sublicensing fee payments. The parties have customary termination rights under the Factor L&C Agreement, including in connection with certain uncured material breaches of the Factor L&C Agreement and specified bankruptcy events. Any termination of our existing or future licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and would harm our business significantly. 14 Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including: ● the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; ● whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement; ● our right to sublicense patents and other intellectual property to third parties under the license agreement; ● our diligence obligations under the agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; ● the priority of invention of patented technology; and ● the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from any joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us or our partners. If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or license in the future, prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully enter into co-development strategic partnerships. In addition, the resolution of any such disputes could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Additionally, we may have limited control over the maintenance, prosecution or enforcement of rights we in-license, and we may also have limited control over activities previously or separately conducted by our licensors. For example, we cannot be certain that activities conducted by Factor Limited or any other present or future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may also have limited control over other intellectual property that is not licensed to us but that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer or the intellectual property or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceedings or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or drug candidate and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could suffer. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we own, as we are for intellectual property that we license. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect the intellectual property underlying our synthetic iMSC technology platform and any other in-licensed intellectual property, our ability to enter into co-development strategic partnerships could materially suffer. Our intellectual property rights may not adequately protect our business. The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business. For example: ● we, or our license partners or current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we license or may own in the future; ● we, or our license partners or current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions; 15 ● others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating any of our owned or licensed intellectual property rights; ● it is possible that our pending licensed patent applications or those that we may own in the future will not lead to issued patents; ● issued patents that we hold rights to may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors or other third parties; ● our competitors or other third parties might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale; ● we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; ● the patents of others may harm our business; ● we may choose not to file a patent in order to maintain certain trade secrets or proprietary know- how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property; and ● our trade secrets or proprietary know-how may be unlawfully disclosed, thereby losing their trade secret or proprietary status. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We rely heavily on in-licensed intellectual property from Factor Limited. Loss of this license or termination of the Factor L&C Agreement could significantly harm our product development and ability to enter co-development strategic partnerships, materially impacting our business. Our business is substantially dependent upon the synthetic iMSC technology licensed from Factor Limited. Pursuant to the Factor L&C Agreement, Factor Limited has customary termination rights, including in connection with certain uncured material breaches of the Factor L&C Agreement, failure to make payments and specified bankruptcy events. Our ability to develop therapeutics products or enter into co-development partnerships using the Factor Patents depends entirely on the effectiveness and continuation of the Factor L&C Agreement. If the Factor L&C Agreement is terminated, there is no guarantee that we will be able to enter into a new license agreement that aligns with our business strategy on the same or similar terms, if at all, and our competitors could in-license the technology, which would result in a significant market disadvantage to us. We or our licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of the patents and other intellectual property that we own or license now or in the future. We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we in-license or that we may own or in-license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees or contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such assignment may not be self-executing, for example, as part of employment or consulting agreements, or may be breached. Our licensors may face similar obstacles. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership, including in derivation proceedings in the USPTO. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition. 16 Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security. Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on which we rely, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters (including hurricanes and earthquakes), terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development and other programs. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See Part I, Item 1C. Cybersecurity for more information on information regarding our cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance. If we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive life science industry depends in large part upon the ability to attract highly qualified personnel. In order to induce valuable employees to remain with us, we intend to provide employees with stock options and/or restricted stock units that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time will be significantly affected by movements in the price of the common stock, which we cannot control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Competition for skilled personnel in our industry is intense, and competition for experienced scientists may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, our employees may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Other companies with which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles, and a longer history in the industry than we do, and such companies also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. Risks Related to New, Cutting-Edge Technologies Our product development relies on novel, inherently risky technologies. Synthetic mesenchymal stem cell therapy is a relatively new field, and our efforts may not result in effective treatments for human diseases. Cellular immunotherapies, synthetic mesenchymal stem cell therapies, and iPSC-derived product candidates represent relatively new therapeutic areas, and the FDA has cautioned consumers about potential safety risks associated with them. To date, there are relatively few approved cell therapies. As a result, the regulatory approval process for cellular therapy product candidates is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies and therapeutic approaches. Cell reprogramming technology and related cell therapy products using iPSC lines represent novel therapeutic approaches, and to our knowledge, no iPSC-derived cell products are currently approved for commercial sale anywhere in the world. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the type and scope of challenges that we may confront in developing and advancing a pipeline of iPSC-derived therapeutic products. We thus face uncertainties associated with the preclinical and clinical development, manufacture, and regulatory compliance for the initiation and conduct of clinical trials, regulatory approval, and reimbursement required for successfully commercializing future product candidates. Further, the processes and requirements imposed by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may cause delays and additional costs in obtaining approvals for marketing authorization for any future product candidates. Because our platform is novel, and cell- based therapies are relatively new, regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating product candidates using our synthetic iMSC technology platform. This novelty may lengthen the regulatory review process, including the time it takes for the FDA to review IND applications if and when such applications are submitted, increase development costs, and delay or prevent commercialization of future products, if such products are approved for marketing. 17 Due to the rapid advancements in cellular technologies, regulatory processes and requirements in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions governing cellular therapy products are evolving and the FDA or other regulatory bodies may change the requirements, or identify different regulatory pathways, for the clinical testing and approval of these product candidates. For example, in recent years the FDA has issued several new guidance documents related to developing and manufacturing cellular therapy products. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others, or in treated patients after such products are commercialized, may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it was investigating reports of T-cell malignancy in patients following their treatment with B cell maturation antigen-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, although more recent public statements by agency leadership indicate that the benefits of such treatments are expected to still outweigh those risks. Future adverse events or safety issues could lead to more significant regulatory action applicable to either a specific product or a broader product class, based on case-by-case science-based benefit-risk assessments. Similarly, the EMA oversees the development of cellular therapies in the EU and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cellular therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory agencies and committees and any new regulations, requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, which may reduce the anticipated benefits of our co-development strategic partnerships or adversely affect the commercialization of any future therapeutic products we may develop. Accordingly, we may be required to change regulatory strategies or to modify applications for clinical investigations or regulatory approval, which could delay and impair our ability to complete the preclinical and clinical development and manufacture of, and obtain regulatory approval for, our product candidates. Changes in regulatory authorities and advisory groups, or any new regulations, requirements or guidelines we promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require additional studies, increase development and manufacturing costs, lead to changes in regulatory pathways, positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of product candidates we develop or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions that may reduce the our anticipated benefits. The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. Due to the novelty and complexity of cellular products, the regulatory approval process for such product candidates is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine the time or cost required to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates using this technology in either the U.S. or the E.U., or how long it will take to commercialize any product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed. We are in an industry with intense competition and rapid technological change, and our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced, safer, or more effective than any therapy we develop in the future, which may adversely affect our financial condition. We have competitors both in the U.S. and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities, and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, research and human resources than we do, and may also have strategic partnerships and collaborative arrangements with leading companies and research institutions. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring, or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective, safer, or less costly than any products that we may develop in the future, or achieve patent protection, marketing approval, product commercialization, and market penetration earlier than us. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render any product candidates we are seeking to develop uneconomical or obsolete. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Part I, Item 1. Business—Competition”. 18 Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny due to ethical and other concerns surrounding the use of stem cell therapy or human tissue may damage public perception of our synthetic allogeneic iMSC product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. Concerns about the safety or ethics of cell therapy, even if unrelated to our product candidates, could lead to stricter regulations, public resistance, patient recruitment challenges, regulatory delays, labeling restrictions, and reduced demand for our therapies. Such developments could significantly affect our business, financial condition, and the commercialization of future cell therapy products. The manufacture of biotechnology products is complex, and manufacturers often encounter difficulties in production. The manufacture of biotechnology products, including cellular and gene therapy products, is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment. Manufacturers for any product candidates developed using our synthetic iMSC technology platform will be required to comply with cGMP regulations and guidelines for clinical trial product manufacture and subsequently for commercial product manufacture. Manufacturers of biotechnology products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up, addressing product quality, product comparability, validating production processes and mitigating potential sources of contamination. These problems include difficulties with raw material procurement, production costs and yields, quality control, product quality, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Any delay or interruption in the supply of preclinical study supplies (or clinical trial supplies in the future) could delay the completion of such studies, increase the costs associated with the affected development programs and depending upon the period of delay, require new studies to be commenced at additional expense or terminated completely. Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock There may be future sales or other dilution of our equity, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We are generally not restricted from issuing additional common stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock. To raise additional capital, we may in the future sell additional shares of our common stock or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock at prices that are lower than the prices paid by existing stockholders, and investors purchasing shares or other securities in the future could have rights superior to existing stockholders, which could result in substantial dilution to the interests of existing stockholders. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of common stock or securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or the perception that such sales could occur. In addition, under the terms of an asset purchase agreement pursuant to which we acquired assets from a company (the “Seller”) in April 2023, we agreed to issue to the Seller shares of our common stock as contingent consideration. If our market capitalization equals or exceeds $100 million during the three-year period commencing on April 26, 2023 and ending on the three-year anniversary thereof, the number of shares of common stock we would issue is determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. In addition, if our market capitalization equals or exceeds $200 million during the same three-year period, we agreed to issue to the Seller additional shares of our common stock determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. The contingent consideration period expires on April 26, 2026. Our failure to meet the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq could result in a delisting of our common stock. Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Nasdaq requires that listed companies satisfy certain continued listing requirements. Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires that listed companies maintain a minimum compliance with the Bid Price Rule. Listing Rule 5550(b) requires that listed companies maintain compliance with : (1) the Stockholders’ Equity Rule; (2) the MVLS Rule; or (3) the Net Income Rule. Our stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2025 was approximately $2.4 million and we do not currently meet the MVLS or Net Income Rule However, on February 10, 2026, we completed a public offering for the sale of our common stock and accompanying warrants for net proceeds of approximately $9.5 million. As a result, as of the date of this 2025 Annual Report, our stockholders’ equity exceeds $2.5 million, as required under the Stockholders’ Equity Rule. 19 Since February 3, 2026, the closing bid price of our common stock has been trading below $1.00. Upon the 30 th consecutive business day of trading below $1.00, we expect to receive a notice from Nasdaq informing us that we do not meet the Bid Price Rule. To regain compliance, we must maintain a closing bid price of at least $1.00 for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days. Because we effected a reverse stock split within the last 12 months to regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule, Nasdaq rules provide that if our common stock fails to meet the minimum bid price requirement within one year following that reverse stock split, we would not be eligible for any compliance period under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A). In such event, Nasdaq would issue a Staff Delisting Determination with respect to our common stock, which we could appeal to a Nasdaq hearings panel in accordance with applicable Nasdaq rules. If we fail to satisfy any of the Nasdaq continued listing requirements, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our common stock. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with Nasdaq continued listing requirements would be successful. If our common stock is ultimately delisted by Nasdaq, and we are not able to list our securities on another national securities exchange, we expect our securities could be quoted on an over-the-counter market. If this were to occur, then we could face significant material adverse consequences, including: a material reduction in the liquidity of our common stock and a corresponding material reduction in the trading price of our common stock; a more limited market quotations for our securities; a determination that our common stock is a “penny stock” that requires brokers to adhere to more stringent rules and possibly resulting in a reduced level of trading activity in the secondary trading market for our securities; more limited research coverage by stock analysts; loss of reputation; more difficult and more expensive equity financings in the future; the potential loss of confidence by investors; and fewer business development opportunities. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, which is a federal statute, prevents or preempts the states from regulating the sale of certain securities, which are referred to as “covered securities.” If our common stock remains listed on Nasdaq, our common stock will be covered securities. Although the states are preempted from regulating the sale of our securities, the federal statute does allow the states to investigate companies if there is a suspicion of fraud, and, if there is a finding of fraudulent activity, then the states can regulate or bar the sale of covered securities in a particular case. If our securities were no longer listed on Nasdaq and therefore not “covered securities,” we would be subject to regulation in each state in which we offer our securities. Anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law and provisions in our charter and bylaws could make a third-party acquisition of us difficult. Because we are a Delaware corporation, the anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if the change in control would be beneficial to stockholders. We are subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware, which prohibits us from engaging in certain business combinations, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. In addition, our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws also contain certain provisions that may make a third-party acquisition of us difficult, including the ability of our board of directors to issue preferred stock and the inability of our stockholders to call a special meeting or act by written consent. Risks Related to our Financial Position and Capital Requirements We may acquire businesses, assets or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions. 20 We may acquire additional businesses, assets or products, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising intellectual property, markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new acquisition. Difficulties may prevent us from realizing its expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction. Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards may be subject to limitations. Our ability to use our federal and state net operating losses (“NOLs”) to offset potential future taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due is dependent upon our generation of future taxable income, and we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether, we will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our NOLs. Under Section 382 and Section 383 of the Code and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” its ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change income may be limited. A Section 382 “ownership change” is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could have a material adverse effect on cash flow and results of operations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Risks Related to Regulatory Requirements We are subject to extensive and costly government regulation. Product candidates employing medical technology are subject to extensive and rigorous domestic government regulation including regulation by the FDA, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, state and local governments, and their respective foreign equivalents. If products employing our technologies are marketed abroad, they will also be subject to extensive regulation by foreign governments, whether or not they have obtained FDA approval for one or more uses. Such foreign regulation may be equally or more demanding than corresponding U.S. regulation. Government regulation substantially increases the cost and risk of researching, developing, manufacturing, and selling medical products. Even if we or our strategic partners are able to obtain regulatory approval for a particular product candidate, the approval may limit the indicated medical uses for the product, may otherwise limit the ability to promote, sell, and distribute the product, may require costly post-marketing surveillance, and/or may require ongoing post-marketing studies. Material changes to an approved product, such as, for example, manufacturing changes or revised labeling, may require further regulatory review and approval. Once obtained, any approvals may be withdrawn, including, for example, if there is a later discovery of previously unknown problems with the product, such as a previously unknown safety issue. In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. For example, regulatory agencies may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. Regulators may approve a product candidate for a smaller patient population, a different drug formulation or a different manufacturing process, than we or our strategic partners are seeking. The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we may be unable to produce revenue and our business will be substantially harmed. A product cannot be commercialized until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept an application for review, or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional non-clinical, clinical or other studies. 21 We may never be able to obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates that we develop in the future. If our future product candidates are ultimately not approved for any reason, our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition would be adversely affected. In addition, even once clinical development of a future product candidate is initiated, such clinical studies may not start or be completed on schedule, if at all. The completion or commencement of clinical studies can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons, including, among others: ● the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not authorize us or our future clinical investigators to commence planned clinical studies, or require that we suspend ongoing clinical studies through imposition of clinical holds; ● negative results from our ongoing studies or other industry studies involving engineered or gene-edited cell therapy product candidates; ● delays in reaching or failing to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective clinical research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to considerable negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and study sites; ● inadequate quantity or quality of a product candidate or other materials necessary to conduct clinical studies, for example delays in the manufacturing of sufficient supply of finished drug product; ● difficulties obtaining ethics committee or IRB, approval to conduct a clinical study at a prospective site or sites; ● challenges in recruiting and enrolling subjects to participate in clinical studies, the proximity of subjects to study sites, eligibility criteria for the clinical study, the nature of the clinical study protocol, the availability of approved effective treatments for the relevant disease and competition from other clinical study programs for similar indications; ● severe or unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by subjects in a clinical study, such as severe neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome; ● the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with a proposed clinical study design, implementation of clinical trials or our interpretation of data from clinical studies, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical studies; ● reports from non-clinical or clinical testing of other competing candidates that raise safety or efficacy concerns; and ● difficulties retaining subjects who have enrolled in a clinical study but may be prone to withdraw due to rigors of the clinical studies, lack of efficacy, side effects, personal issues, or loss of interest. Changes in regulatory requirements, agency guidance or unanticipated events during our non-clinical studies and future clinical studies of our future product candidates may occur, which may result in changes to non-clinical or clinical study protocols or additional non-clinical or clinical study requirements, which could result in increased costs to us and could delay our projected development timeline. Changes in regulatory requirements or FDA or EMA guidance, or unanticipated events during our non-clinical studies and future clinical studies, may force us to amend non-clinical studies and future clinical study protocols. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also impose additional non-clinical studies and clinical study requirements. Amendments to protocols for or other aspects of our non-clinical studies may increase the cost or delay the timing or successful completion of those studies. If we experience delays completing, or if we terminate, any of our non-clinical or future clinical studies, or if we are required to conduct additional non-clinical or clinical studies, the commercial prospects for our future product candidates may be harmed and our ability to recognize product revenue will be delayed. 22 Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or other events or conditions outside of their control could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA to review and approve INDs, proposed clinical trial protocols, or new product candidates can be affected by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other regulatory agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA’s inspectional activities were interrupted and restarted on a risk-based basis, which had the effect of delaying review and potential approval of product candidate marketing applications. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our future regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected. We maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities in Massachusetts that are used for our research and development activities. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing these hazardous materials in our laboratory facilities comply with the relevant guidelines of the relevant local, state, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of animals and biohazardous materials. Any insurance coverage we have may not be sufficient to cover these liabilities. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate any of these laws or regulations which would adversely affect our business. Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations, and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect: ● the demand for our therapeutic candidates, if we obtain marketing approval; ● our ability to receive or set a price that we believe is fair for our future products; ● our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability; ● the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and ● the availability of capital. 23 The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the U.S. It also included the provisions that created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The ACA continues to significantly impact the U.S.’s pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which prescription drug and biological product manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. In August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which includes (among other things) multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the U.S.. A manufacturer of drug products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. The IRA is in the process of being implemented by CMS and its impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. remains uncertain at this time, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing a separate price negotiation program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). These PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. For example, in August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts similarly remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. We expect that the ACA, the IRA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any future approved therapeutic product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our future therapeutic candidates, if approved. In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our current or any future products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. Our future products, if any, might not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, an adequate level of reimbursement might not be available for such products and third-party payors’ reimbursement policies might adversely affect our ability to sell any future products profitably. Legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biologic therapeutics, and FDA’s statutory authorities are periodically amended by Congress. For example, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional authorities related to the accelerated approval pathway for human drugs and biologics. Under these recent amendments to the FDCA, the agency may require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The amendments also give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our therapeutic candidates, if any, may be. Increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-approval testing and other requirements. 24 In addition, in April 2023 the European Commission issued a proposal that will revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation governing drug and biological products intended for the EU market. If adopted and implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the EU. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business. Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property If the licensors of our in-licensed technology are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection, or if the scope of the patent and other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to those derived from such intellectual property, and our ability to achieve profitability may be adversely affected. Our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on maintaining the proprietary nature of our in-licensed technology and manufacturing processes. We rely on research, manufacturing and other know-how, patents, trade secrets, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights. We cannot predict whether the patent applications related to our in-licensed technology will issue as patents, or whether the claims of any resulting patents will provide us with a competitive advantage or whether the licensor will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future relating to such products and product candidates. Moreover, the patent application and approval processes are expensive and time-consuming. The licensor may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, we, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities for the licensor to seek additional patent protection. Defects of form in the preparation or filing of patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If the licensor fails to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution or enforcement of our patents or patent applications, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Even if they are unchallenged, our in-licensed patents and patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive therapy that provides benefits similar to one or more of the future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop but that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, the successful commercialization of such product candidates could be negatively affected. Other parties, many of whom have substantially greater resources and have made significant investments in competing technologies, have developed or may develop technologies that may be related or competitive with our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have been issued or may be issued patents with claims that overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming the same compositions, formulations or methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. As a result, any patents we may in-license in the future may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop. 25 The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the U.S. or in many foreign jurisdictions. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting ANDAs or aBLAs to the FDA in which they claim that the patents related to our in-licensed technology are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert these patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the in-licensed patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, we cannot offer any assurances regarding which, if any, patents will issue, the scope of any such issued patents, whether any such patents will be found invalid and unenforceable, whether they may be challenged by third parties or whether they will effectively prevent others from commercializing competing technologies and drug candidates. In addition to patent protection, we expect to rely heavily on trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented technology, which are difficult to protect. Although we seek such protection in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with our vendors, employees, consultants and others who may have access to proprietary information, we cannot be certain that these agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available, or our trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or be independently developed by our competitors. If we are unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights, sales of our products may suffer, and our ability to generate revenue could be severely impacted. If the licensor of our in-licensed technology does not obtain patent term extension for future products that we, our strategic partners or collaborators may successfully develop, our business may be materially harmed. Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a particular product, we or our strategic partners or collaborators may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are approved and commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. In the future, if we obtain an issued patent covering one of the product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop, depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of such product candidates, such patent may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process for drugs and biologics. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent may be extended, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. A patent may only be extended once and only based on a single approved product. However, the patent owner may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failure to obtain a granted patent before approval of a product candidate, failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failure to apply within applicable deadlines, failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise our failure to satisfy applicable requirements. A patent licensed to us by a third party may not be available for patent term extension. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. 26 Changes in patent law in the U.S. and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop. Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. or other jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. When implemented, the Leahy-Smith Act included several significant changes to U.S. patent law that impacted how patent rights could be prosecuted, enforced and defended. In particular, the Leahy-Smith Act also included provisions that switched the U.S. from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allowed third- party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO administered post grant proceedings. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures governing the administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Some of the Company’s patents and patent applications have effective dates later than March 16, 2013 and thus will be subject to the provisions of the Leahy-Smith Act. In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future. We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world. Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. could be less extensive than those in the U.S.. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries; thus, even in countries where we do pursue patent protection, there can be no assurance that any patents will issue with claims that cover our products. There can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain patent rights in or outside the U.S. under any future license agreements. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from utilizing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., even in jurisdictions where we pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the U.S. and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries including India and China, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our in-licensed patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the U.S. and Europe. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government authorities or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected. 27 Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. They could also put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. While we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop. We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the U.S. and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our drug candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S. or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products. We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property. Many of our current and former employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at universities or at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including some which may be competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees may be subject to proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such third party. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own, which may result in claims by or against us related to the ownership of such intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel. 28 We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property. We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co- inventor. For example, we or our collaborators may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our drug candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership of our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our drug candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. In addition, our patents may become, involved in inventorship, priority, or validity disputes. To counter or defend against such claims can be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent is invalid or unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Further, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Even if resolved in our favor, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing drug candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. Furthermore, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. 29 If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our marks of interest and our business may be adversely affected. Our current or future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We rely on both registration and common law protection for our trademarks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, with the USPTO and with comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Although these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Moreover, any proprietary name we have proposed to use with our drug candidates in the U.S. must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed proprietary product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.