IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc. 10-K

10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2025 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 001-38915 IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) Delaware 47-4268251 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 5000 Shoreline Court , Suite 300 South San Francisco , California 94080 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 650 ) 443-6209 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share IDYA Nasdaq Global Select Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☒ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐ Emerging growth company ☐ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒ The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2025, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, of $21.02 per share, was $ 1.8 billion. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the registrant, have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes. As of February 13, 2026, the registrant had 87,814,027 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding. This number does not include 875,135 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of pre-funded warrants outstanding as of February 13, 2026 (which are immediately exercisable at an exercise price of $0.0001 per share of common stock, subject to beneficial ownership limitations). DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. The proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I Item 1. Business 1 Item 1A. Risk Factors 34 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 92 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 92 Item 2. Properties 94 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 94 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 94 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities 95 Item 6. Reserved 95 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 96 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 105 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 105 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures 105 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 106 Item 9B. Other Information 106 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 107 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 108 Item 11. Executive Compensation 108 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 108 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 108 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 108 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 109 Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 114 i NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, timing and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations and future results of anticipated products, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks, including, without limitation, the following: • the scope, progress, results and costs of developing our product candidates or any other future product candidates, and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, including our darovasertib (PKC) Phase 2/3 clinical trials, IDE397 (MAT2A) Phase 1/2 clinical trials, IDE849 (DLL3) Phase 1 clinical trial, IDE161 (PARG) Phase 1/2 clinical trial, IDE275 (Werner Helicase) Phase 1 clinical trial, IDE705 (Pol Theta Helicase) Phase 1 clinical trial, IDE892 Phase 1 clinical trial, IDE034 Phase 1 clinical trial and IDE574 Phase 1 clinical trial as well as the potential clinical utility and tolerability of our product candidates; • our clinical and regulatory development plans; • the scope, progress, results and costs related to the research and development of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform, including costs related to the development of our proprietary libraries and database of tumor genetic information and specific cancer-target dependency networks; • our expectations about the impact of macroeconomic developments, such as health epidemics or pandemics, macro-economic uncertainties, social unrest, geopolitical hostilities, natural disasters or other catastrophic events, on our business, and operations, including clinical trials, manufacturing suppliers and collaborators, and on our results of operations and financial condition; • the availability of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates and any future product candidates, or the cost of coordinating and/or collaborating with certain diagnostic companies for the manufacture and supply of companion diagnostics; • the timing of and costs involved in obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval (or certification in certain foreign jurisdictions) for any current or future product candidates and companion diagnostics, and any related restrictions, limitations, and/or warnings in the label of an approved product candidate; • our expectations regarding the potential market size and size of the potential patient populations for darovasertib, IDE397, IDE849, IDE161, IDE275, IDE705, IDE892, IDE034, IDE574, our other product candidates and any future product candidates, if approved for commercial use; • the timing and amount of any milestone, royalty or other payments we may or may not receive pursuant to any current or future collaboration or license agreement, including under our License Agreement with Servier; • our ability to maintain existing, and establish new, strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of any such agreements, including our Clinical Study Collaboration and Supply Agreement with Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), our Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreements with Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), our License Agreement with Novartis, our Option and License Agreement with Cancer Research Technologies Ltd. and the University of Manchester, our Option and License Agreement with Biocytogen ii Pharmaceuticals (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (Biocytogen), our License Agreement with Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Hengrui Pharma), and our License Agreement with Les Laboratoires Servier (Servier); • the timing of commencement of future nonclinical studies and clinical trials and research and development programs; • our ability to acquire, discover, develop and advance product candidates into, and successfully complete, clinical trials; • our intentions and our ability to establish collaborations and/or partnerships; • the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals for our product candidates; • our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and expectations; • our intentions with respect to the commercialization of our product candidates; • the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved; • the implementation of our business model and strategic plans for our business, product candidates and technology platforms, including additional indications for which we may pursue; • the scope of protection we are able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering our product candidates, including the projected terms of patent protection; • our potential involvement in lawsuits in connection with enforcing our intellectual property rights; • our potential involvement in third party interference, opposition, derivation or similar proceedings with respect to our patent rights and other challenges to our patent rights and patent infringement claims; • estimates of our expenses, future revenue, capital requirements, our needs for additional financing and our ability to obtain additional capital; • our future financial performance; and • developments and projections relating to our competitors and our industry, including competing therapies and procedures, as well as the competitive position of our product candidates. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not occur or be achieved, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise. Summary of Principal Risks Associated with Our Business Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our securities. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following: • We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that has no products approved for commercial sale. We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited operating history, makes it difficult to assess our future viability; • Our business is dependent on the successful development of our product candidates, future product candidates, and companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates and future product candidates; • The commercial success of darovasertib outside the United States will depend largely on the commercialization efforts of Servier, which holds the license for such commercialization. If Servier is unable to perform in accordance with the terms of the Servier License Agreement or the License Agreement is terminated, our iii potential to generate future revenue from territories outside the United States would be significantly reduced or delayed and our business could be materially and adversely harmed; • We may be unable to complete clinical trials and apply for market authorization for any of our product candidates; • The successful development of targeted therapeutics, including therapeutics involving direct targeting of an oncogenic pathway and synthetic lethality therapeutics, including our portfolio of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitors, as well as any related diagnostics, is highly uncertain; • Preclinical and clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates, which could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results; • We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials given the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being developed and due to competition for such patients with other product candidates under development. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected; • If we are unable to successfully develop molecular diagnostics for biomarkers that enable patient selection and/or that demonstrate drug-target interaction, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of our product candidates; • We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. Most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do and we may not be able to successfully compete; • If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific and commercial personnel, our business may be materially and adversely affected; • We rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical development and expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, including for any future approved commercial products. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts; • Our success depends on our ability to obtain and maintain protection for our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies and to avoid infringing the rights of others; and • Our stock price may be volatile and you may not be able to resell shares of our common stock at or above the price you paid. iv PART I Item 1. Busi ness. Company Overview We are a precision medicine oncology company committed to the discovery, development, and commercialization of transformative therapies for cancer. Our approach integrates expertise in small-molecule drug discovery, structural biology and bioinformatics with robust internal capabilities in identifying and validating translational biomarkers to develop tailored, potentially first-in-class targeted therapies aligned to the genetic drivers of disease. We have built a deep pipeline of product candidates focused on synthetic lethality and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for molecularly defined solid tumor indications. Our clinical development strategy is to evaluate our product candidates in rational combinations, where appropriate, and earlier in the course of disease in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, which we believe has the potential to maximize their impact. Our mission is to bring forth the next wave of precision oncology therapies that are more selective, more effective and deeply personalized with the goal of altering the course of disease and improving clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Pipeline – Overview and Program Goals Our current clinical pipeline consists of nine potential first-in-class product candidates across four clinical focus areas: (1) Darovasertib for Uveal Melanoma; (2) ADC and DNA Damage Response (DDR) Combinations; (3) MTAP Pathway; and (4) Next Generation Therapies. We have selectively established collaborations with leading pharmaceutical companies to support our clinical development activities. Details of our pipeline are summarized in the chart below. (1) Pursuant to Pfizer License Agreements (2) Pursuant to Servier License Agreement (3) Pursuant to Hengrui Pharma License Agreement (4) Pursuant to Gilead Clinical Study Collaboration and Supply Agreement Darovasertib for Uveal Melanoma Darovasertib is an oral, potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of protein kinase C (PKC) and our most advanced clinical program. We are developing darovasertib for uveal melanoma (UM), a rare, aggressive form of ocular cancer in which approximately 95% of patients harbor activating mutations in GNAQ/11 GTPase proteins that drive downstream PKC signaling and tumor cell growth. We are conducting multiple clinical trials in the metastatic and pre-metastatic settings of UM, as described below. 1 • Metastatic UM (mUM) . We are evaluating darovasertib in combination with crizotinib, Pfizer’s oral c-MET inhibitor, in a potentially registration-enabling, Phase 2/3 trial (OptimUM-02) for human leukocyte antigen-A*02:01 negative (HLA*A2(-)), patients with first line (1L) mUM. We expect to report topline data, including progression free survival (PFS) data, from this trial in the first quarter of 2026. Based on our discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the PFS data from OptimUM-02 may enable an accelerated approval filing in the United States. Accelerated approval is intended to allow for earlier approval of drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need based on a demonstration of effectiveness on a surrogate endpoint, with the requirement to conduct one or more additional studies to confirm the anticipated clinical benefit to obtain full traditional approval. In December 2025, we completed full enrollment of 437 patients in OptimUM-02, and plan to submit overall survival (OS) data from these patients, when available, to support a full approval filing in this indication. In October 2025, we reported positive data at the Society for Melanoma Research Congress (SMR) from our single-arm Phase 2 trial (OptimUM-01) of darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in 1L mUM patients, which included the first median OS data presented with the combination. Data were from a total of 44 1L mUM patients, including both HLA*A2(-) and HLA*A2:01 positive (HLA*A2(+)). Highlights of the data presented are shown below. ▪ In 41 efficacy-evaluable patients, confirmed objective response rate (ORR) of 34% (14/41) with a 9.0 month median duration of response (mDOR). ▪ Disease control rate (DCR) of 90% (37/41), with 85% (35/41) achieving ‘any reduction’ in target lesions. ▪ 7.0 month median PFS and 21.1 month median OS across all patients. (1) Khoja L, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43 (suppl), Abstract 9539 (2) Rantala ES, et al. Melanoma Res. 2019; 29:561-568 2 Based on our data from the Phase 2 OptimUM-01 trial and our understanding of its mechanism of action, we believe darovasertib will have clinical activity in mUM independent of a patient’s HLA*A2 serotype. We are continuing to evaluate the combination of darovasertib and crizotinib in HLA*A2(+) patients in the OptimUM-01 trial and expect to complete enrollment of approximately 100 HLA*A2(+) patients by the second quarter of 2026. The data from OptimUM-01 may be used to support a potential future submission to the FDA to expand the labeled use for darovasertib and/or a national comprehensive cancer network (NCCN) compendia listing to enable use of the combination in these patients. • Neoadjuvant UM . To explore its potential use beyond metastatic UM, we are also evaluating darovasertib as a monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting of primary UM, where the goal of treatment is to prevent enucleation (surgical eye removal), preserve vision prior to and post-plaque brachytherapy and potentially delay or prevent progression to metastatic disease. In 2025, we initiated a randomized Phase 3 trial of darovasertib in the neoadjuvant setting (OptimUM-10), which will enroll approximately 450 patients across two cohorts of plaque brachytherapy-eligible (PB) and enucleation-eligible (EN) patients. We plan to complete enrollment in this trial by the first half of 2027. In October 2025, we presented positive data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) from our randomized, Phase 2 trial (OptimUM-09) of darovasertib in neoadjuvant UM. Data were from 95 patients, including 56 recommended for EN and 39 eligible for PB. Highlights of the data that were presented include: ▪ Ocular tumor shrinkage observed in ~83% (78/94) of patients assessed, the majority of whom achieved ≥20% tumor shrinkage. ▪ Among evaluable EN patients, the eye preservation rate was 57% (24/42), which increased to 95% (19/20) in patients achieving ≥20% tumor shrinkage. ▪ Among PB eligible patients, ~70% (26/37) achieved a reduction in predicted radiation dose to the eye from baseline, resulting in ~65% (24/37) having lower predicted risk of vision loss 3-years post-PB treatment. ▪ During neoadjuvant treatment with darovasertib, ~55% (29/53) of EN and ~61% (23/38) of PB patients showed an improvement in baseline visual acuity scores (VAS), with a mean gain of 17 and 10 letters, respectively. • Adjuvant UM . We plan to initiate a global Phase 3 combination trial (OptimUM-11) of darovasertib and crizotinib in the adjuvant setting of primary UM in the first half of 2026. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 450 patients with high to medium-high risk of metastasis, randomized 1:1 to the combination of darovasertib and crizotinib or placebo. The primary endpoint of this trial is relapse-free survival (RFS). Servier License Agreement In August 2025, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Servier, pursuant to which we granted to Servier an exclusive license under certain intellectual property rights controlled by us relating to darovasertib to develop and commercialize products in all countries worldwide except for the United States for all diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic uses in humans. We received an upfront payment of $210.0 million and are eligible for up to $320.0 million in development, regulatory and commercial-based milestone payments, as well as mid-teen to low-twenties percentage royalties on net sales in all territories outside of the United States. Servier will be responsible for the regulatory and commercial activities for darovasertib outside the United States. We and Servier will collaborate on the development of darovasertib and share the associated costs. We retain all rights to darovasertib in the United States. Uveal Melanoma patient population We estimate the annual incidence of primary UM is >10,000 patients globally (including North America, Europe and Australia) and >3,000 patients in the United States. In metastatic UM, we estimate the annual incidence of newly diagnosed patients is between 4,000-5,000 globally and approximately 1,500 in the United States, which is based on data suggesting that approximately 50% of patients diagnosed in the primary setting ultimately progress to metastatic disease. Based on published data, we believe the majority of mUM patients are of the HLA*A2(-) serotype, representing between 60-65% of all mUM patients. In addition, several publications suggest there is clinical evidence of the loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the HLA-alleles that could create discordance between a blood based versus tumor-based evaluation resulting in a potential over-reporting of HLA*A2(+) prevalence due to the loss of an allele with cancer progression. Currently, there are no FDA-approved systemic therapies for primary UM and no FDA-approved therapies for patients with HLA*A2(-) mUM. 3 Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Orphan Drug Designation and Fast Track Designation In March 2025, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation (BTD) for darovasertib as a neoadjuvant treatment of adult patients with primary UM for whom enucleation has been recommended. BTD is designed to expedite the development and regulatory review of promising therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions where preliminary clinical evidence suggests substantial improvement over existing treatments. The designation facilitates more intensive FDA guidance, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and eligibility for potential rolling review and priority review of a future new drug application (NDA). In November 2022, the FDA granted Fast Track designation to our development program investigating darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in adult patients being treated for mUM. The Fast Track designation makes our darovasertib and crizotinib development program eligible for various expedited regulatory review processes, including generally more frequent FDA interactions, such as meetings and written communications, potential eligibility for rolling review and priority review of an NDA. In April 2022, the FDA designated darovasertib as an Orphan Drug in UM, including primary and metastatic disease. Under an Orphan Drug designation, darovasertib may be entitled to certain tax credits for qualifying clinical trial expenses, exemption from certain user fees and, subject to FDA approval of a NDA, for darovasertib in UM, eligibility for seven years of statutory marketing exclusivity during which the FDA is prohibited from approving a subsequent same drug for the same rare disease or condition except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent drug that demonstrates clinical superiority. If approved for one or more designated indications, darovasertib may also be excluded from certain mandatory price negotiation provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. ADC / DDR Combinations Our second area of clinical focus is to explore combinations of topoisomerase I inhibitor–based ADCs (TOP1 ADCs) and selective inhibitors of the DDR pathway. TOP1 ADCs have demonstrated meaningful clinical activity as monotherapies, however their broader application across solid tumors has been limited by challenges in achieving sufficient and durable tumor-selective payload delivery, particularly in the context of low or heterogeneous tumor-selective antigen expression. The DDR enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) plays a uniquely essential role in the repair of TOP1–mediated DNA damage, which leads to cell death when left unresolved. We believe pharmacologic inhibition of PARG has the potential to selectively amplify TOP1-induced DNA damage and enhance the antitumor activity of these agents. Our clinical pipeline within this focus area is summarized below. • IDE849 / SHR-4849 is a potential first-in-class, DLL3 TOP1 ADC. DLL3 is expressed at high frequency in multiple solid tumor types, including approximately 85% of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 64% of neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC). Notably, DLL3 has limited extracellular expression in normal tissues, making it a promising therapeutic target in these tumor types for which there remains significant unmet medical need. IDE849 is currently being evaluated by our partner, Hengrui Pharma, in a multi-site, open label Phase 1 clinical trial in China in patients with SCLC and NEC. In September 2025, Hengrui Pharma presented positive initial Phase 1 data at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer’s (IASLC) 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) in Barcelona, Spain. Data were from a total of 100 patients, including 87 refractory (2L+) SCLC patients, who received IDE849 at doses between 0.8 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg with a once every 3-week dosing interval. Highlights of the data presented as of the cutoff date of June 20, 2025 are shown below. Efficacy (n=71 evaluable SCLC patients treated with IDE849) 4 ▪ Robust ORR and DCR were consistently observed across all expansion doses evaluated and in patients across all lines of therapy, with a modest reduction in ORR/DCR observed in later-line patients consistent with their more advanced stage of disease. ▪ 14.1% (10/71) of patients across all doses > 2.4 mg/kg are still pending confirmation, as well as multiple patients who have had limited follow-up (e.g. one post-baseline scan) highlighting the study has not yet achieved a fully mature confirmed ORR%. ▪ In patients with baseline brain metastasis, a confirmed ORR of 83.3% (5/6) and a DCR of 100% (6/6) was observed at the 2.4 mg/kg dose. Across all doses ≥2.4 mg/kg (n=18) with baseline brain metastasis, the confirmed ORR was 66.7% (12/18) with a DCR of 100% (18/18). A confirmation scan for one unconfirmed partial response is pending, which if confirmed, would increase the confirmed ORR to 72.2% (13/18). ▪ Median PFS was 6.7 months across all lines of treatment at doses of IDE849 ≥2.4 mg/kg (n=86); median PFS was not yet reached (NR) in 2L patients (n=42). ▪ As of the cut-off date of June 20, 2025, the median length of follow-up was 3.5 months. Safety (n=100 SCLC and NEC patients treated with IDE849) ▪ Across all patients and all dose levels (n=100), Grade 3 or higher (Gr3+) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 48% (48/100) and serious TRAEs in 16% (16/100) of patients. The most common TRAEs were white blood cell reduction (27% Gr3+), neutropenia (33% Gr3+), anemia (6% Gr3+) and nausea (0% Gr3+). ▪ TRAEs leading to dose reduction in 15% (15/100) of patients; treatment-related discontinuation rate of 2% (2/100) with no treatment-related deaths reported. ▪ Manageable safety profile observed across multiple expansion cohorts, including the 2.4 mg/kg, 3.0 mg/kg, and 3.5 mg/kg dose levels with a once every 3-week dosing interval. ▪ As of the cutoff date of June 20, 2025 referenced for the data in the presentation, at the 2.4 mg/kg dose, the Gr3+ TRAE rate was below 20%. A 7% (7/100) rate of interstitial lung disease was reported across all patients in the study, of which 1% was Grade 3. There were no Grade 4 or Grade 5 cases reported. In April 2025 we received U.S. investigational new drug (IND) clearance from the FDA to begin a global Phase 1 trial in patients with SCLC, NEC and other DLL3-overexpressing tumors. We plan to provide initial data from this trial and initiate a monotherapy registrational trial in the second line/refractory setting (2L+) of SCLC and/or NEC by the end of 2026. We are also targeting to initiate a Phase 1 clinical combination trial with IDE849 and IDE161, our proprietary PARG inhibitor, in the second quarter of 2026. • IDE034 is a potential first-in-class, B7H3/PTK7 bispecific TOP1 ADC. B7H3/PTK7 has been found to be co-expressed in many solid tumor types, including in approximately 30-40% of lung, colorectal, breast and ovarian cancers, among others. We received IND clearance from the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2025 and expect to achieve first-patient-in in our Phase 1 dose-escalation trial in the first quarter of 2026. Dosing of the first patient with IDE034 will trigger a $5.0 million milestone payment to Biocytogen, pursuant to our Option and License Agreement. Based on our preclinical data, we believe IDE034 has the potential to be developed both as a monotherapy and in combination with programs in our pipeline targeting the DDR pathway, including our PARG inhibitor, IDE161. • IDE161 is a potential first-in-class, oral small molecule poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibitor. PARG is a novel target in a clinically validated biological pathway that functions as a regulator of DNA repair in the same biochemical pathway as PARP, however PARG is mechanistically distinct from PARP. We believe IDE161 has the potential to amplify TOP1-mediated DNA damage delivered in the context of an ADC to improve the efficacy and durability of these antitumor agents. As shown in the figure below, we have observed robust and durable tumor shrinkage in preclinical models with IDE161 in combination with IDE849 and IDE034 relative to either agent as a monotherapy, suggesting the combination may enhance the efficacy and durability of TOP1 ADCs. 5 Pending ongoing dose-finding work, we are targeting to initiate a Phase 1 clinical combination trial with IDE161 and IDE849 (DLL3) in SCLC, NEC and potentially other DLL3-overexpressing solid tumors in the second quarter of 2026. We may also evaluate clinical combinations of IDE161 with IDE034 (B7H3/PTK7) and potentially other TOP1 ADCs in collaboration with third parties. We received Fast Track designations from the FDA in September 2023 for IDE161, specifically for the treatment of (i) adult, pretreated, platinum-resistant advanced or metastatic ovarian cancer patients having tumors with BRCA1/2 mutations and (ii) adult, pretreated, advanced or metastatic hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2-) and BRCA1/2 mutant breast cancer patients. We own or control all commercial rights to IDE161, subject to certain economic obligations pursuant to our exclusive, worldwide license to certain PARG inhibitors, including IDE161, with CRT and University of Manchester. • IDE705 is a potential first-in-class, oral small molecule inhibitor of the helicase domain of Pol Theta, an enzyme that is involved in a DNA repair process called microhomology mediated end joining that is utilized when homologous recombination mediated repair is compromised, as happens in the case of certain BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Pol Theta is largely absent in normal cells but tends to be overexpressed in tumor cells harboring double strand break repair defects, such as those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, which results in a synthetic lethal vulnerability to Pol Theta inhibition. We had been evaluating IDE705 in combination with niraparib, a selective inhibitor of PARP, in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) pursuant to the terms of our 2020 Collaboration, Option and License Agreement. In December 2025, GSK notified us of its intention to terminate the Agreement, which will be effective 90 days following the date of GSK’s notice, or March 9, 2026. During the ninety-day transition period, GSK will transfer the Pol Theta (IDE705) clinical program to us in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement. Once effective, we do not intend to continue clinical development of IDE705 in combination with niraparib or other PARP inhibitors and instead plan to begin preclinical studies evaluating the potential of IDE705 to enhance the efficacy of TOP1 ADCs in solid tumors, as we are doing with IDE161, within our focus area of ADC/DDR combinations. MTAP Pathway Our third area of clinical focus is on solid tumors with methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) gene deletions. MTAP-deleted cells lack the ability to metabolize 5-methylthioadenosine (MTA) which is an essential step in a biochemical pathway involved in salvaging the metabolite S-adenosyl methionine (SAM). Increased levels of MTA partially inhibit the methyltransferase PRMT5, for which SAM is the methyl-donor substrate for methylation of essential proteins. The partial inhibition of PRMT5 by increased levels of MTA renders MTAP-deleted cells more dependent on the activity of MAT2A, an enzyme that is responsible for the synthesis of SAM. Therefore, increased dependence on MAT2A results in a synthetic lethal vulnerability when MAT2A is pharmacologically inhibited in MTAP-deleted tumors. Our clinical strategy is based on evaluating rational combinations designed to inhibit key nodes in the MTAP pathway to drive deep and durable antitumor responses in MTAP-deleted tumors. The backbone of these combinations is IDE397, a potent and selective inhibitor of MAT2A. Our clinical pipeline within this focus area is described below. 6 • IDE397 is a potential first-in-class, oral, small molecule inhibitor of MAT2A. We are conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial pursuant to a Clinical Study Collaboration and Supply Agreement (CSCSA) with Gilead to evaluate IDE397 in combination with Trodelvy® (sacituzumab govitecan-hziy), Gilead’s Trop-2 directed ADC, in patients with MTAP-deletion urothelial cancer (UC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Both we and Gilead retain full commercial rights to our respective programs. In September 2025, we presented initial Phase 1/2 data from the combination in MTAP-deleted UC patients. The data was from a total of 19 patients with late-line MTAP-deleted UC who received the combination of IDE397 and Trodelvy at one of two dose levels (DL1; IDE397: 15 mg/kg; Trodelvy: 10 mg/kg; or DL2; IDE397: 30mg/kg; Trodelvy: 7.5 mg/kg). Of the 19 patients, 16 were evaluable for efficacy having received at least one post-baseline tumor assessment per RECIST v1.1. Highlights of the data presented are in the figure below. Data as of Aug 29, 2025 (based on preliminary analysis of unlocked database). One patient not included as MTAP status was determined to be WT by central IHC testing. 1 PR confirmed 27 days instead of 28 days or later after initial scan showing response. # Patient confirmed response after the data cut-off; * Patient missed ~50% of dosing prior to 1st scan, + Patient still on treatment as of cutoff date; ^ Patient developed new lesions. As of the cutoff date, median PFS and DOR had not been reached. The safety profile of the combination was manageable and consistent with known adverse events of both drugs as single agents, with no treatment related serious adverse events observed at the IDE397 30mg and Trodelvy 7.5 mg/kg expansion dose. The most common Gr3+ TRAEs observed in DL1 were anemia and neutropenia, and in DL2 were anemia, asthenia, and diarrhea. We have selected DL2 as the go-forward dose in UC and are targeting to share additional data from this combination trial in MTAP-deleted UC at a medical conference in 2026. We are also continuing to enroll MTAP-deleted NSCLC patients in the trial, however data from these patients is still immature. In addition to the combination with Trodelvy described above, IDE397 is the backbone of two additional clinical combination strategies intended to amplify metabolic liabilities and genomic instability conferred by loss of MTAP in tumor cells: ▪ MAT2A + PRMT5 inhibition. Accumulation of MTA in MTAP-deleted tumors partially inhibits PRMT5 activity, which increases cell dependence on MAT2A and results in a synthetic lethal vulnerability in such tumors when MAT2A is pharmacologically inhibited. As described below, we intend to evaluate the combination of IDE397 with our proprietary MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor, IDE892, in MTAP-deleted lung cancer. ▪ MAT2A + Co-alterations of MTAP. We are exploring other potential combination opportunities for our MTAP-related programs with agents that target common co-alterations of MTAP, such as RAS/KRAS and CDKN2A, the most common co-alteration of MTAP. The CDKN2A locus is commonly co-deleted with MTAP, resulting in loss of important tumor suppressor proteins that lead to tumor growth. We plan to nominate a development candidate for the CDKN2A program in the second half of 2026 followed by submission of an IND application to the U.S. FDA in the first half of 2027. 7 • IDE892 is a potential first-in-class, oral small molecule MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor. IDE892 was discovered through our iterative physics-based ligand design and optimization platform and is a highly potent and selective MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor with favorable drug-like properties. IDE892 together with IDE397 enables the evaluation of a wholly-owned clinical combination of the PRMT5 and MAT2A mechanisms, which may synergize to provide deeper, more durable responses in certain MTAP-deleted tumors. As shown below, IDE892 has demonstrated selective antiproliferative activity in MTAP-deleted tumor cell models as well as durable complete responses in combination with IDE397 in challenging MTAP-deletion preclinical models. We received IND clearance from the FDA in the third quarter of 2025 and expect to begin a Phase 1 dose escalation trial in the first quarter of 2026 with the goal of advancing into combination trials with IDE397 in MTAP-deleted NSCLC in the second quarter of 2026. MTAP-deleted solid tumor patient population There are currently no approved therapies for patients with MTAP-deleted solid tumors, highlighting the unmet medical need in this setting. MTAP-deletion occurs in approximately 15% of all solid tumors, including >15% of NSCLC and >25% of UC, based on The Cancer Genome Atlas database. We estimate the U.S. annual incidence of MTAP-deleted tumors is approximately 62,000 patients across our priority tumor types of UC, NSCLC and pancreatic cancer, based on the 2024 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Next Generation Therapies Our fourth area of clinical focus is on the development of next generation therapies designed to intercept the fundamental dependencies underpinning tumor driver pathways. These targets potentially overcome the genetic and epigenetic tumor heterogeneity that otherwise limits the efficacy and durability of cancer therapies. • IDE574 is a potential first-in-class, oral small molecule equipotent dual inhibitor of the lysine acetyltransferase (KAT) 6 and 7, both of which have been shown to support cancer cell survival. IDE574 selectively inhibits both KAT6 and KAT7, while sparing other structurally similar KAT molecules such as KAT5 and KAT8 that are required for normal cell function. KAT6 and KAT7 are mechanistically intertwined epigenetic modulators of cell identity and lineage commitment programs that are corrupted by oncogenic transformation. Dual KAT6/7 inhibition delivers robust and durable anti-tumor activity, superior to KAT6 inhibition alone, in preclinical tumor models with 8p11 amplifications, as well as in selected indications dependent upon lineage-specific transcription factor activity. 8 In January 2026, we received IND clearance from the FDA and are targeting to begin a Phase 1 dose escalation trial in patients with breast, lung, prostate and colorectal cancers in the first quarter of 2026. • IDE275 is a potential first-in-class, oral small molecule inhibitor of the helicase domain of the Werner protein (WRN), a RecQ enzyme involved in the maintenance of genome integrity. Germline loss of function mutations in WRN lead to premature aging and pre-disposition to cancer. We have published preclinical data showing that the helicase functional domain of WRN is responsible for a synthetic lethal vulnerability in MSI-High tumor models. Microsatellite instability (MSI) refers to the change in a tumor cell’s DNA content, as the number of repeated microsatellites, or short repeated sequences of DNA, differs as the cells divide. Tumors classified as MSI-High represent approximately 3-4% of all cancers, including approximately 28% of endometrial and 10% of ovarian cancers and 15% of gastrointestinal tumors, including 22% of stomach adenocarcinoma. In October 2024, GSK initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial with IDE275 in patients with MSI-High tumors pursuant to our 2020 Collaboration, Option and License Agreement. In December 2025, GSK notified us of its intention to terminate the Agreement, which will be effective 90 days following the date of GSK’s notice, or March 9, 2026. GSK will transfer the WRN (IDE275) IND back to us in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement. Once complete, we intend to complete the dose expansion portion of the Phase 1 trial to inform the next phase of development. Our Drug Discovery Engine in Precision Medicine Oncology We have built a fully integrated platform to deliver a renewable pipeline of potential first-in-class programs. Highlights of our discovery and development capabilities are described below. Precision Medicine Research Platform We have established a robust precision medicine research platform with capabilities for identification and validation of new targets and biomarkers, drug discovery and translational biology. Our approach integrates small molecule drug discovery with extensive capabilities in identifying and validating translational biomarkers to develop targeted therapies for select patient populations that are most likely to benefit from these targeted therapies. Our small molecule drug discovery expertise includes discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics. Our discovery platform includes our proprietary chemical library, INQUIRE™, structure-based drug design enabled by extensive structural biology and crystallography capabilities with over 200,000 chemical compounds, and our proprietary content-based machine-learning engine, HARMONY™, providing effective and efficient molecular design and structure-activity-relationship cycles. 9 DECIPHER™ Dual CRISPER Synthetic Lethality Library – UCSD We have constructed our DECIPHER Dual CRISPR library for synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery in collaboration with the University of California, San Diego, and bioinformatics analysis and validation are ongoing. The DECIPHER 1.0 library is focused on DDR targets across various tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes of interest that were selected based on their known prevalence and role in solid tumors, enabling evaluation of approximately 50,000 independent gene knockout combinations of DDR pathway-related drug targets across known tumor suppressor genes. PAGEO™ Paralogous Gene Evaluation in Ovarian Cancer and Dep Map Consortium We have an ongoing strategic collaboration with the Broad Institute focused on discovery of synthetic lethality targets and biomarkers. This collaboration uses the large-scale CRISPR paralog screening platform developed at the laboratory of William R. Sellers, M.D., Core Institute Member, Broad Institute, to evaluate functionally redundant paralogous genes across ovarian cancer subtypes and to generate novel target and biomarker hypotheses. Dr. Sellers, who also serves on our Scientific Advisory Board, is the principal investigator for the strategic collaboration. We have also become a member of the Broad DepMap (Cancer Dependency Map) consortium led by the Broad Institute to further enhance our efforts in bioinformatics and cell-based screening for synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery and validation. Strategy Our mission is to bring forth the next wave of precision oncology therapies that are more selective, more effective, and deeply personalized with the goal of altering the course of disease and improving clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Our current clinical pipeline consists of nine potential first-in-class product candidates focused across four strategic areas. We seek to treat patients earlier in their course of disease, whether first line or in the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings, and use rational combinations to drive deeper and more durable outcomes. Such combinations may be with proprietary assets in our pipeline or with assets obtained through collaborations and partnerships. We have also established relationships with diagnostics companies developing cutting-edge technologies for developing biomarkers and patient selection strategies for our product candidates. The principal components of our strategy are to: • Develop and commercialize darovasertib for patients across all stages of uveal melanoma. Our most advanced product candidate, darovasertib, is an oral, potent and selective PKC inhibitor currently in multiple clinical trials in both the metastatic and pre-metastatic settings of UM. Approximately 95% of uveal melanoma patients have activating mutations in either GNA11 or GNAQ, resulting in overactivation of PKC and tumor cell growth. We are targeting to report topline results from the darovasertib and crizotinib combination in our registrational Phase 2/3 OptimUM-02 trial in 1L patients with HLA*A2(-) mUM in the first quarter of 2026. Data from this trial, if positive, will be used to support an accelerated approval filing in the United States. In parallel, we are advancing commercial readiness activities in the United States and globally with our partner, Servier, to make this treatment available to mUM patients in need around the world. Darovasertib is anticipated to be in three randomized, Phase 3 registrational trials across all stages of UM by the first half of 2026, including the Phase 2/3 OptimUM-02 trial in metastatic UM, our Phase 3 OptimUM-10 trial in the neoadjuvant setting and the planned Phase 3 OptimUM-11 trial in the adjuvant setting, which we are targeting to initiate in the second quarter of 2026. We believe data from these trials, if positive, will support the use of darovasertib in the majority of patients with UM. • Prioritize and advance potentially first-in-class, differentiated precision oncology therapies and rational combinations for patients with solid tumors. Our current clinical pipeline consists of nine potential first-in-class product candidates across four clinical focus areas. Beyond darovasertib and crizotinib in UM, we are focused on evaluating the potential synergy between TOP1 ADCs and inhibitors of the DDR pathway, where our most advanced programs are IDE849, a DLL3 TOP1 ADC, and IDE161, an oral PARG inhibitor, that we are developing for patients with SCLC, NEC and other DLL3-overexpressing tumors. The TOP1-inhibitor payload induces replication stress in tumor cells, which is then amplified by the introduction of the systemic PARG inhibitor, resulting in mitotic catastrophe, and cell death. For patients with MTAP-deleted solid tumors we are exploring multiple combination strategies with IDE397, a selective MAT2A inhibitor, given as the backbone of therapy with Trodelvy, a Trop-2 TOP1 ADC, or IDE892, an MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor, where there is strong mechanistic rationale for the combination to drive deeper, more durable responses than either agent alone. Lastly, we have begun advancing a pipeline of next generation therapies focused on disrupting the key pathways that underpin tumor heterogeneity, drug resistance mechanisms and lineage addiction, led by IDE574, an equipotent dual inhibitor of KAT6/7. We believe our product portfolio offers a number of compelling 10 opportunities, either as monotherapies or in combinations, to improve the standard of care for patients with solid tumors. • Leverage our core development capabilities to broaden our precision therapy pipeline. We are continuing our target identification and validation activities for advancing new targets and associated biomarkers, with active programs for several high-value targets. For example, we are planning to nominate a development candidate by the first half of 2026 for a novel program targeting the most common co-alteration of MTAP, CDKN2A, which we believe has strong combination potential with our existing clinical-stage assets in this area, IDE397 and IDE892. We will continue investing in our core functional and development capabilities, including target and drug discovery, bioinformatics and translational biology, to establish a deep clinical-stage pipeline of potentially first-in-class, differentiated precision therapies for patients with cancer. • Selectively establish relationships with third parties to accelerate our pipeline development, strengthen our capital resources and maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates. We have established multiple value-accretive collaborations with leading pharmaceutical companies to support our clinical development activities, expand our pipeline and broaden our global commercial reach. We are collaborating with Pfizer and Gilead on the clinical development of darovasertib in UM and IDE397 for MTAP-deleted UC and NSCLC, respectively. We also entered into exclusive in-license agreements with Hengrui Pharma for IDE849 and Biocytogen for IDE034, which added two potentially first-in-class TOP1 ADCs to our internally-discovered pipeline. Most recently, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Servier to develop and commercialize darovasertib outside of the United States, for which we received an upfront payment of $210.0 million and potential future milestones of $320.0 million. We will continue to evaluate future collaborations, where appropriate, to complement our pipeline, accelerate or enhance our clinical development efforts and provide additional sources of capital to support our business. • Collaborate with leaders in the field of diagnostics to enable the identification of defined patient populations for our product candidates. Our precision medicine approach leverages the availability or development of companion diagnostics to identify the right patients for which our product candidates may be most effective. We have established relationships with leading companies in the diagnostic space, including Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health and Tempus, to ensure our clinical programs are developed for patient groups most likely to benefit based on the genetics or expression profile of their disease. We are also incorporating new genetic testing technologies, such as next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA, to solidify these efforts in our clinical development. Competition Our industry is very competitive and subject to change based on ongoing advances in technology. Although we believe that our approach, strategy, scientific capabilities, knowledge and experience provide us with competitive advantages, we expect to have substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do. We face competition with respect to product candidates in our pipeline and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue targeted approaches to addressing activating genetic and other molecular alterations in cancer. For darovasertib, we are not aware of other companies actively developing clinical-stage therapeutics directed to PKC as a target for solid tumors. Varsity Pharma is preclinically evaluating a PKC inhibitor in CLL, and Aquilon has nominated PKC theta as a target for preclinical development. Additionally, Windtree Therapeutics is advancing a preclinical-stage atypical PKC iota inhibitor, including both topical and oral formulations, for potential treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma. We are aware of several other companies conducting research and development of potential therapies for primary UM or for mUM based on other targets and approaches. Replimune has initiated a potentially registration-enabling trial for RP-2, an oncolytic immunotherapy. iOnctura has initiated a Phase 2 trial for Roginolisib, an allosteric PI3K delta inhibitor, in 2L+ mUM. Other programs in development for mUM include Novartis’ DYP688, an ADC, with a GNAQ-11 inhibitor payload in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, and Immatics’ anzu-cel/IMA203, a PRAME-targeting TCR-based, T cell therapy. Aura Biosciences is developing bel-sar, a virus-like drug conjugate (VDC), as local treatment for early-stage choroidal melanoma. Additionally, Immunocore has commercialized Tebentafusp, also known under its branded name as Kimmtrak, for the treatment of adult patients with HLA*A2(+), unresectable or metastatic UM. 11 For IDE849, our competitors include companies developing DLL3-targeting therapies using various therapeutic modalities, including bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), ADCs, chimeric antigen receptor (T-cell) therapies, and radiopharmaceuticals. Amgen received accelerated approval from the FDA in May 2024 for Tarlatamab (branded name Imdelltra), a DLL3-CD3 BiTE. Zelgen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo are developing drugs with a similar mechanism of action, in Phase 3 or Phase 2 studies. We are aware of several companies developing DLL3 ADCs with Topoisomerase I inhibitor payloads. Zai Lab recently initiated a Phase 3 trial for ZL-1310 in relapsed SCLC and Roche, Zhang Jiang, and Baili are conducting Phase 1 studies. In radiopharmaceuticals, Abdera, Molecular Partners, and Novartis are conducting Phase 1 clinical trials and several other companies are pursuing preclinical development of DLL3-targeting radiotherapies. For IDE034, we are not aware of any other companies developing bi-specific ADCs targeting both B7H3 and PTK7, however many companies are developing mono-antigen ADCs targeting either B7H3 or PTK7. Merck, Hansoh/GSK, Medilink, and Minghui are evaluating B7H3 ADCs in Phase 3 clinical trials. Several other companies have B7H3 ADCs in earlier phases of clinical development, including BeOne, Duality, Innovent, Mabwell and MacroGenics. Furthermore, Day One, Kelun, Kivu and Lilly are evaluating PTK7 ADCs in Phase 1 studies. For IDE161, 858 Therapeutics is conducting a Phase 1 clinical trial for its small molecule PARG inhibitor, ETX-19477. Several other companies have more recently initiated Phase 1 studies for PARG inhibitors, including Danatlas, Evopoint, FoRx, and SynRx. Additionally, several companies are conducting preclinical research to develop PARG inhibitors, including Aigen, Alivexis, Azkarra, Nodus Oncology, Satya Pharma Innovations, and QuantX. For IDE705, Artios Pharma is developing a Pol Theta inhibitor, designated as ART-6043, in a Phase 1/2 study. Several other companies have initiated Phase 1 studies for Pol Theta inhibitors, including Danatlas, Gilead, Moma Therapeutics, Simcere, and SynRx. Additionally, Breakpoint Therapeutics and QuantX have Pol Theta inhibitors in IND-enabling studies. For IDE397, Servier is evaluating a small molecule MAT2A inhibitor designated as S095035 in a Phase 1/2 trial. Insilico Medicine and BeOne Medicines have also initiated Phase 1 trials for their small molecule MAT2A inhibitors called ISM3412 and BG-89894, respectively. Additionally, Genhouse Bio, Hanmi, ScinnoHub, SK Biopharma and Shouyao have small molecule MAT2A inhibitors in preclinical development. For IDE892, we are aware of many companies developing PRMT5 inhibitors in both clinical and preclinical stages. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) has initiated Phase 2/3 trials for navlimetostat (BMS-986504) in first line MTAP-deleted NSCLC and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The next most advanced assets include AMG-193 from Amgen, AZD-3470 from AstraZeneca, BGB-58067 from BeOne, and vopimetostat (TNG462) from Tango, which are all in Phase 1/2 studies. At least ten other companies have initiated Phase 1 clinical trials and more than ten companies are advancing preclinical PRMT5 inhibitors. For IDE574, Pfizer is evaluating a KAT6/7 dual inhibitor in a Phase 1 clinical trial in addition to KAT6A inhibitor prifetrastat (PF-07248144) in a Phase 3 clinical trial. Several other companies are also developing drugs directed to KAT6 only, including Hengrui, Menarini and Olema, which are conducting Phase 1 trials. Additionally, Isosterix, Prelude, Qubit and several others are developing preclinical KAT6 inhibitors. For IDE275, Vividion is developing a covalent WRN inhibitor designated as VVD-133214 in a Phase 1 trial. Novartis and Nimbus Therapeutics are evaluating non-covalent WRN inhibitors, called HRO-761 and NDI-219216 respectively, in Phase 1 trials. Eikon and MOMA Therapeutics also more recently initiated Phase 1 trials for WRN inhibitors. Additionally, several companies are conducting preclinical research to develop WRN inhibitors, including Genhouse, Insilico, and Puhe, among others. For our preclinical pipeline of synthetic lethality therapeutics, potential competition includes established companies as well as earlier-stage emerging biotechnology companies. Multiple established companies have been involved with research and development in synthetic lethality, such as AstraZeneca (Lynparza), Pfizer (Talzenna), GSK (Zejula) and Roche. Additionally, several other early-stage companies are developing synthetic lethality therapeutics, including 858 Therapeutics, Artios, Breakpoint Therapeutics, Eikon, FoRx Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, Ryvu Therapeutics, Tango, Vividion, and Xpose. Intellectual Property Intellectual property, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks and copyrights, is important to our business. We endeavor to establish, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights that protect our business interests. 12 Our patent portfolio, including patents owned by or exclusively licensed to us, is built on a program-by-program basis with a goal of establishing broad protection that generally includes, for each product candidate compound and for selected alternative back-up compounds, claims directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment using such pharmaceutical compositions. For some programs, our portfolio may also include claims directed to methods of treatment involving biomarker-enabled patient identification or selection, methods of treatment involving particular dosing approaches, polymorphs, formulations and/or methods of synthesis. We are seeking and maintaining patent protection in the United States and key foreign jurisdictions. As of January 30, 2026, we own or exclusively in-license patents and patent applications, comprising approximately 71 distinct patent families, protecting our technology across our pipeline. Excluding applications that we are not currently prosecuting, our portfolio consists of approximately 21 issued U.S. patents, approximately 37 pending U.S. applications, 15 pending applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 65 issued foreign patents and approximately 185 pending foreign applications in approximately 40 foreign jurisdictions, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, each having expiration dates ranging from 2035 to 2046. The nominal expiration of our patents and patent applications does not account for any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. As of January 30, 2026, as relating to our PKC program, including darovasertib, we own or have exclusively in-licensed from Novartis patents and patent applications comprising approximately seven issued U.S. patents, approximately 34 issued foreign patents, approximately eight pending U.S. applications, approximately two pending PCT application, and approximately 48 pending applications in approximately 20 foreign jurisdictions which we are currently prosecuting, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia. These in-licensed patents and applications are directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treatment, including treatment of UM. These solely owned or in-licensed patent applications, if granted, would expire between 2035 and 2045, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. In addition, the PKC program portfolio includes two U.S. patent application, which are jointly owned with Pfizer directed to methods of treatment for certain combination treatments. As of January 30, 2026, as relating to our MAT2A program, including IDE397, we own patents and patent applications comprising approximately five issued U.S. patents, approximately nine issued foreign patent, approximately 11 pending U.S. applications, approximately three pending PCT applications and approximately 69 pending foreign applications in approximately 26 foreign jurisdictions which we are currently prosecuting, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia. These solely owned or in-licensed patent applications, if granted, would expire between 2039 and 2045, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. In addition, the MAT2A program portfolio also includes one pending US application and nine pending foreign applications directed to methods of treatment of cancer which are jointly owned with GSK; one pending US application, one pending PCT application, and five foreign applications directed to methods of treatment of cancer which are jointly owned with Amgen pursuant to the Amgen CTCSA; and one pending PCT application directed to methods of treatment of cancer which is jointly owned with Gilead pursuant to the Gilead CSCSA. As of January 30, 2026, as relating to our PARG program, including IDE161, we own or have exclusively in-licensed from Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester, patents and patent applications comprising approximately four issued U.S. patents, approximately 17 issued foreign patents, approximately eight pending U.S. application, and approximately 67 pending foreign applications in approximately 37 foreign jurisdictions which we are currently prosecuting, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia. These solely owned or in-licensed patent applications, if granted, would expire between 2035 and 2044, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. Our patent portfolio also supports programs in our synthetic lethality preclinical pipeline, including U.S. patent applications directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions and/or methods of treatment of cancer for each of our Pol Theta (HR), WRN (MSI-High), PRMT5, KAT6A/7, ADC (DLL3), ADC (B7H3/PTK7), and certain next-generation SLT programs. 13 Strategic Relationships We own or control all commercial rights within the United States for our most advanced program, darovasertib. We own or control all commercial rights worldwide for IDE397 and IDE161. We have entered into strategic relationships for these programs – for example, to in-license certain intellectual property rights or to enable evaluation of combination therapies, such as through combination drug supply or clinical trial collaborations to evaluate combinations. For darovasertib, we have an exclusive license agreement with Novartis and separately, we have established clinical trial collaboration and supply agreements with Pfizer in support of our clinical evaluation of darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in mUM. We have also granted an exclusive license to Servier to develop and commercialize darovasertib outside the United States. For IDE397, we entered into the Gilead CSCSA and the Second Gilead CSCSA to clinically evaluate IDE397 in combination with Trodelvy, the Gilead Trop-2 directed ADC, in patients with MTAP-deleted UC and NSCLC, respectively. For IDE161, we have an exclusive in-license agreement with Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester. In 2020, we entered into a strategic partnership and collaboration with GSK for our synthetic lethality programs targeting Pol Theta (IDE705) and Werner Helicase (IDE275), pursuant to the GSK Collaboration, Option and License Agreement. GSK delivered written notice of its intention to terminate the collaboration in December 2025 and these programs will be transferred to us in accordance with the applicable provisions of the agreement. We own all commercial rights to our earlier next-generation synthetic lethality programs, including IDE892 and IDE574, for which our small molecule compounds are being discovered and/or developed internally with our own resources, supplemented by certain service providers, such as CROs. In 2024, we entered into two in-license agreements for ADCs with topoisomerase-I-inhibitor-payloads to enable combinations with our synthetic lethality programs. Pursuant to the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement, we obtained an option to in-license IDE034, a preclinical B7H3/PTK7 bispecific ADC, and we subsequently exercised the option to obtain worldwide commercial rights to the molecule. We also entered into the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement for global development and commercial rights to IDE849, a DLL3-targeting ADC, outside of Greater China. Under the terms of the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement and the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement, Biocytogen and Hengrui Pharma provide development manufacturing services for the ADCs. We have established collaborative relationships with other companies for access to their proprietary database of patient samples, and/or for their genetic screening services on their proprietary platform. We have established certain development manufacturing and service relationships with contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for darovasertib, IDE397, and IDE161, as well as our early clinical candidates IDE892 and IDE574. We have an agreement with STA Pharmaceutical Hong Kong Limited Pharmaceutical (STA Pharmaceutical), and Yuhan Corporation for the synthesis of the API for darovasertib, and agreements with STA Pharmaceutical and Patheon Inc. for formulation and manufacturing of darovasertib drug product. We have an agreement with STA Pharmaceutical for the synthesis of the API, formulation and manufacturing of IDE397 drug product. We have an agreement with Pharmaron for the synthesis of the API, and with STA Pharmaceutical for the formulation and drug product manufacturing of IDE161, IDE892 and IDE574. We have established arrangements with CMOs as well for packaging, labeling and distribution of darovasertib, IDE397, and IDE161. We also have established clinical services relationship with CROs to support our conduct of clinical trials for our darovasertib, IDE397, and IDE161 programs. In addition to these existing strategic license relationships, existing and planned development manufacturing and service arrangements, and existing and planned clinical services arrangements, we have various existing agreements and relationships with service providers, such as CROs, which are enabling execution of various research and development activities for each of our pipeline programs. In particular, such agreements are directed to chemistry and compound synthesis, compound analysis and characterization, structural biology, computational biology, biological assay and model development, in vitro screening, in vivo screening, translational biomarker diagnostic development, bioinformatics, toxicology and formulation, among other activities. We may also evaluate future strategic opportunities to accelerate development timelines and maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates. We plan to selectively evaluate strategic collaborations with biopharmaceutical partners whose research, development, commercial, marketing, and geographic capabilities complement our own. Agreements 14 Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreements with Pfizer for Darovasertib In March 2020, we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement with Pfizer, Inc., as amended in September 2020, April 2021, September 2021 and May 2023 (the Pfizer Agreement). Pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement, Pfizer supplies us with their MEK inhibitor, binimetinib, and their cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, to evaluate combinations of darovasertib independently with each of the Pfizer compounds, in patients with tumors harboring activating GNAQ or GNA11 mutations. Under the Pfizer Agreement, we are the sponsor of the combination studies and will provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination studies. Pfizer will provide binimetinib and crizotinib for use in the clinical trial at no cost to us. The Pfizer Agreement provides that we and Pfizer will jointly own clinical data generated from the clinical trial and will also jointly own inventions, if any, relating to the combined use of darovasertib and binimetinib, or independently, to the combined use of darovasertib and crizotinib. We and Pfizer have formed a joint development committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the agreement. In March 2022, we and Pfizer entered into a Second Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (as amended in May 2023) (the Second Pfizer Agreement), pursuant to which we are evaluating darovasertib and crizotinib as a combination therapy in mUM in a planned Phase 2/3 potential registration-enabling clinical trial. Pursuant to the Second Pfizer Agreement, we are the sponsor of the combination trial and we will provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination trial; Pfizer will provide crizotinib for the planned combination trial at no cost to us for up to an agreed-upon number of mUM patients. We and Pfizer will jointly own clinical data from the planned combination trial and all inventions relating to the combined use of darovasertib and crizotinib. We and Pfizer have formed a joint development committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Second Pfizer Agreement. Separately, in March 2022, we and Pfizer also entered into a Third Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the Third Pfizer Agreement), pursuant to which we could, subject to preclinical validation and FDA feedback and guidance, evaluate darovasertib and crizotinib, as a combination therapy in cMET-driven tumors such as NSCLC and/or HCC in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Pursuant to the Third Pfizer Agreement, we would have been the sponsor of the planned combination trial, and we would provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination trial; Pfizer would provide crizotinib for the planned combination trial at no cost to us. Pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to the Second Pfizer Agreement, as described below, we and Pfizer terminated the Third Pfizer Agreement. In May 2023, we continued our relationship with Pfizer by entering into Amendment No. 4 to the Pfizer Agreement relating to the supply of crizotinib in support of this Phase 2 clinical trial, pursuant to which Pfizer will continue to provide us with an additional defined quantity of crizotinib at no cost. We also expanded our relationship with Pfizer in May 2023 under an Amendment No. 1 to the Second Pfizer Agreement to support the Phase 2/3 registrational trial to evaluate darovasertib and crizotinib as a combination therapy in mUM. Under the as-amended Second Pfizer Agreement, Pfizer will provide us with a first defined quantity of crizotinib at no cost, as well as an additional second defined quantity of crizotinib at a lump-sum cost. The Third Pfizer Agreement has been terminated by us and Pfizer under Amendment No. 1 to the Second Pfizer Agreement. In December 2024, we entered into Amendment No. 5 to the Pfizer Agreement for the supply of crizotinib in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial for Pfizer to provide us a defined quantity of crizotinib at defined costs. Exclusive License Agreement with Novartis for Darovasertib In September 2018, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis to develop and commercialize Novartis’ LXS196 (also known as IDE196), a Phase 1 PKC inhibitor, for the treatment of cancers with GNAQ and GNA11 mutations. We renamed Novartis’ LXS196 oncology as IDE196, and which has a non-proprietary name of darovasertib. Under the license agreement, Novartis granted to us a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize certain defined compounds and products, including IDE196 and certain other PKC inhibitors, as well as companion diagnostic products, collectively referred to as the licensed products, for any purpose. All inventions, know-how, data and results resulting from our activities under the license agreement, including activities relating to our own clinical trials, will be exclusively owned by us. All inventions, know-how, data and results resulting from Novartis’ activities connected with Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for IDE196 will be exclusively owned by Novartis, and subject to the license to us. Ownership of all other inventions and know-how will be determined according to U.S. patent law, with Novartis’ interest subject to the license to us. We control the prosecution and maintenance of the patents exclusively licensed to us, with Novartis retaining step-in rights if we do not continue such prosecution and maintenance. If we fail to maintain or prosecute any exclusively licensed patent and Novartis exercises this step-in right, our license to the relevant patents will terminate in the relevant country. We have the first right to enforce any exclusively licensed patents, while Novartis retains the right to representation. If we do not 15 bring an action to enforce any exclusively licensed patent, Novartis has the right to bring such action, and we will have the right to representation. We paid Novartis an upfront payment of $2.5 million and issued 263,615 shares of our Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock concurrently with the execution of the license agreement. Subject to completion of certain clinical and regulatory development milestones, we agreed to make milestone payments in the aggregate of up to $9.0 million, and subject to achievement of certain commercial sales milestones, we agreed to make milestone payments in the aggregate of up to $20.0 million. We also agreed to pay mid to high single-digit tiered royalty payments based on annual worldwide net sales of licensed products, payable on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country by country basis until the latest of the expiration of the last to expire exclusively licensed patent, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, and the ten year anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country. The royalty payments are subject to reductions for lack of patent coverage, loss of market exclusivity, and payment obligations for third-party licenses. In March 2025, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation (“BTD”) for darovasertib, a potential first-in-class PKC inhibitor, for the neoadjuvant treatment of adult patients with primary uveal melanoma (“UM”) for whom enucleation has been recommended. Under the license agreement with Novartis, the Company paid Novartis a $1.0 million milestone payment in April 2025. License Agreement with Servier for Darovasertib outside of the United States In August 2025, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Servier, pursuant to which we granted to Servier an exclusive license under certain intellectual property rights controlled by us relating to darovasertib to develop and commercialize products in all countries worldwide except for the United States for all diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic uses in humans. We received an upfront payment of $210.0 million and are eligible to receive development and regulatory milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $100.0 million, commercial milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $220.0 million, clinical trial cost sharing and clinical trial cost reimbursement, and royalties on net sales of products outside of the United States ranging from mid-teens to low-twenties percentages. Servier will be responsible for the regulatory and commercial activities for darovasertib outside the United States. We and Servier will collaborate on the development of darovasertib and share the associated costs. We retain all rights to darovasertib in the United States. The Servier license agreement will remain in effect on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until expiration of royalty obligations. Either party may terminate for uncured material breach or insolvency of the other. We may terminate the Servier license agreement if (i) Servier ceases development or commercialization in certain countries for a specified period, or (ii) Servier, its affiliates, or its sublicensees challenge licensed patents, subject to certain exceptions. Servier may terminate at will upon specified prior notice. The Servier license agreement contains various representations, warranties, covenants, dispute resolution mechanisms, indemnities and other provisions customary for transactions of this nature. Clinical Study Collaboration and Supply Agreement with Gilead for IDE397 In November 2023, we entered into the Gilead CSCSA to clinically evaluate IDE397 in combination with Trodelvy (sacacituzumab-govitecan-hziy), a Trop-2 directed ADC, in patients having MTAP-deletion UC, in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Under the mutually non-exclusive Gilead CSCSA, we will receive Trodelvy drug supply from Gilead and will sponsor the Phase 1 clinical combination trial evaluating ID397 and Trodelvy. Gilead will bear internal or external costs incurred in connection with its supply of Trodelvy. We will bear all internal and external costs and expenses associated with the conduct of the combination study. We and Gilead will jointly oversee clinical development of the combination therapy through a Joint Steering Committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Gilead CSCSA. We and Gilead each retain commercial rights to its respective compounds, including with respect to use as a monotherapy agent or combination agent. On February 12, 2025, we entered into the Second Gilead CSCSA with Gilead pursuant to which we and Gilead will collaborate on a portion of our Phase 1 study for the clinical evaluation of IDE397 in combination with Trodelvy (the Combination Study), in certain patients with advanced solid tumors in lungs. Pursuant to the Second Gilead CSCSA, we are the sponsor of the Combination Study, and we will provide the IDE397 compound and pay for the costs of the Combination Study. Gilead will provide Trodelvy for the Combination Study at no cost to us. We and Gilead will jointly own clinical data from the Combination Study and all inventions relating to the combined use of IDE397 and Trodelvy. Each party retains commercial rights to its respective compounds, including with respect to use as a monotherapy or combination agent. We and Gilead will form a joint steering committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Second Gilead CSCSA. Exclusive Option and License Agreement with Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester for IDE161 16 In April 2017, we entered into the CRUK/Manchester Agreement with Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester, which was amended on April 24, 2019 and on March 3, 2020, for the development and commercialization of licensed products comprising pharmaceutical preparations of PARG inhibitors for all therapeutic uses. Under this agreement, Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester have granted to us, and we have in turn granted to Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester, non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free licenses to carry out non-clinical research during the research term, which ended with our exercise of our option described below. The non-clinical research was governed by a joint research committee comprised of representatives from each party. During the research term, no party was to undertake a drug discovery program in PARG inhibitors other than under this agreement. Cancer Research UK also granted us the exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, under certain Cancer Research UK background intellectual property and Cancer Research UK’s interest in any intellectual property jointly developed under the agreement, to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize licensed products, as well as a non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free, freedom-to-operate license under related intellectual property. Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester retain certain rights under the licensed intellectual property for academic, non-commercial research and teaching. In January 2022, we exercised our option for an exclusive worldwide license covering a broad class of PARG inhibitors from Cancer Research Technology Ltd. (CRT), and the University of Manchester, and in connection therewith, paid a one-time option exercise fee of £250,000. Following our option exercise, we gained sole control and responsibility for the research, development, manufacture, and commercialization of the licensed PARG inhibitors. Cancer Research UK also transferred its know how relating to the research, development or manufacturing of the licensed PARG inhibitors to us. We are obligated to develop a PARG inhibitor for the treatment of a cancer indication now that we exercised the option. Each party is the sole owner of any intellectual property it develops solely under the agreement, and the parties will be joint owners of any jointly developed intellectual property. Each party grants the other a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty free, irrevocable, sublicensable, perpetual license to its rights in such jointly created intellectual property to make, use and sell inventions claimed in the joint patents, except for those joint patents exclusively licensed to us under the agreement following our exercise of the option. A total of up to £19.5 million in payments to CRT upon the achievement of specific development and regulatory approval events for development of a PARG inhibitor in oncologic diseases are payable under the agreement. We will also pay low single-digit tiered royalties, and potentially also sales-based milestones, to CRT based on net sales of licensed products. In addition, in the event we sublicense the intellectual property, we will also be obligated to pay CRT a specified percentage of any sublicense revenue. In April 2023, we incurred an obligation to pay milestone payments in an aggregate amount of £750,000 to CRT based upon the achievement of certain milestones relating to first and second tumor histologies in connection with the Phase 1 portion of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial in oncologic diseases. Collaboration, Option and License Agreement with GSK for Pol Theta and Werner Helicase In June 2020, we entered into the GSK Collaboration Agreement with GSK, pursuant to which we and GSK entered into a collaboration for its synthetic lethality programs targeting MAT2A, Pol Theta and WRN. On July 27, 2020, we and GSK received Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act clearance, and the GSK Collaboration Agreement became effective. Pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement, GSK held a global, exclusive license to develop and commercialize Pol Theta products arising out of the Pol Theta program and WRN products arising out of the WRN program. We and GSK collaborated on preclinical research for the Pol Theta and WRN programs. In December 2025, GSK notified us of its intention to terminate the Collaboration, Option and License Agreement, dated June 15, 2020. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, such termination will be effective 90 days following the date of GSK’s notice, which is March 9, 2026. During the ninety-day transition period, GSK will transfer the Werner Helicase (IDE275) and Pol Theta (IDE705) clinical programs to us in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement. Option and License Agreement with Biocytogen for IDE034 In July 2024, we entered into the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement with Biocytogen, pursuant to which Biocytogen granted us an option for an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize products in connection with a potential first-in-class B7H3/PTK7 topoisomerase-I-inhibitor-payload BsADC program (the Option). Under the terms 17 of the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement, we paid Biocytogen an upfront fee and, upon our exercise of the Option, an exercise fee totaling $6.5 million. In November 2024, we announced the selection of IDE034, a potential first-in-class B7H3/PTK7 topo-I-payload BsADC, as a development candidate and the exercise of the Option. Pursuant to our exercise of the Option, Biocytogen is eligible to receive additional development and regulatory milestone payments and commercial milestone payments, as well as low to mid-single-digit royalties on net sales. Total potential milestone payments equal an aggregate of $400.0 million, including development and regulatory milestone payments of up to $100.0 million. Our royalty obligations continue with respect to each country and each product until the later of (i) the date on which such product is no longer covered by certain intellectual property rights in such country and (ii) the 10th anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country. We will have the right to terminate the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement for any reason or no reason upon 90 days written notice to Biocytogen. Upon any termination of the Biocytogen Option and License Agreement after the exercise of the Option, the license granted to us will automatically terminate. We will have the right to sell any or all of the inventory of Licensed Products held by us as of the date of termination for a period of 12 months following such termination. License Agreement with Hengrui Pharma for IDE849 (SHR-4849) In December 2024, we entered into the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement with Hengrui Pharma, pursuant to which Hengrui Pharma granted us an exclusive worldwide license outside of Greater China to develop and commercialize SHR-4849, a novel DLL3-targeting topo-I-payload antibody drug conjugate. Pursuant to the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement, Hengrui Pharma is eligible to receive upfront and milestone payments totaling $1.045 billion, including a $75.0 million upfront fee, up to $200.0 million in development and regulatory milestone payments, plus commercial success-based milestones. Hengrui Pharma is also eligible to receive mid-single to low-double digit royalties on net sales outside of Greater China. In October 2025, the initiation of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, or first dosing of first patient, was achieved for IDE849 (SHR-4849). Under the license agreement with Hengrui Pharma, we paid Hengrui Pharma a $2.0 million milestone payment. The Hengrui Pharma License Agreement will continue in effect on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the obligation to make payments under the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement with respect to such product in each country, unless earlier terminated by either party pursuant to its terms. Either party may terminate the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement upon mutual agreement or for the other party’s insolvency or certain uncured material breaches. We may terminate the Hengrui Pharma License Agreement for any reason upon certain notice to Hengrui Pharma. Sales and Marketing We intend to become a fully integrated, commercial stage biopharmaceutical company focused on delivering transformative medicines to patients in need. We currently hold commercialization rights for darovasertib within the United States, worldwide commercialization rights for IDE397, IDE892, IDE034, IDE161, IDE574, IDE275, IDE705, and own or control all commercial rights outside of greater China for IDE849. Given our current stage of development, we have not yet fully built our commercialization capabilities. However, we have initiated planning and preparation for potential commercial operations, including for sales, marketing and market access capabilities, subject to the results of our Phase 2/3 clinical trial for darovasertib (OptimUM-02) and required regulatory approvals. To enable our delivery of any approved medicines to patients, we plan to build our own sales force to commercialize them in the United States and potentially in Europe and other selected foreign countries for pipeline products beyond darovasertib. We believe a moderately sized specialty sales force, supported by effective marketing and sales management organizations, would enable us to reach healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of the patient populations for darovasertib and our other product candidates. We may also enter into distribution and other marketing or commercialization arrangements with third parties for any of our approved medicines to support their safe and effective use in appropriate patients. Manufacturing We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and our biomarker diagnostics for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for future commercial manufacture of any drugs and 18 diagnostics that we may commercialize. We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. In general, we plan to establish agreements with CMOs for synthesis of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing of drug product comprising such API, as well as packaging, labeling and distribution. We have also established supply arrangements with one or more CMOs for each of our small molecule development programs and with Biocytogen and Hengrui Pharma for our in-licensed ADCs in support of our current clinical development needs. Our lead product candidates darovasertib, IDE397, IDE849, IDE161, IDE275, IDE705, IDE892, IDE034 and IDE574 are either small molecules or antibody drug conjugates that can be manufactured in reliable and reproducible processes. We believe the biochemical or synthetic processes are amenable to scale-up using standard manufacturing equipment and processes. We expect that the compounds being discovered and developed for our other pipeline programs and other future programs, can be produced at contract manufacturing facilities. In many cases, we anticipate that the biomarker diagnostic may be commercially available on an existing third-party diagnostic panel or assay. In cases where such biomarker diagnostic is not already commercially available, we generally expect to establish agreements with strategic partners for clinical supply of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with the targeted therapeutics we are developing. Government Regulation Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States. U.S. Drug Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with good laboratory practice (GLP), regulations and other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical trials in humans may begin; • approval by an independent institutional review board (IRB), at each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP) regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; • submission to the FDA of an NDA; • satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable; • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (cGMP), regulations to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and 19 • FDA review and approval of the NDA. Once a pharmaceutical product candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the first phase clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. A clinical hold also may be imposed by the FDA at any time during a clinical trial due to safety concerns or non-compliance with specific FDA requirements, and the clinical trial may not continue until the FDA notifies the sponsor that the hold has been lifted. All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP regulations, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the clinical trial and the consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the clinical trial until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. Sponsors sometimes designate their Phase 1 clinical trials as Phase 1a or Phase 1b. Phase 1b clinical trials are typically aimed at confirming dosing, pharmacokinetics and safety in a larger number of patients. Some Phase 1b studies evaluate biomarkers or surrogate markers that may be associated with efficacy in patients with specific types of diseases. • Phase 2: This phase involves clinical trials in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage. • Phase 3: Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for product labeling. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a clinical trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the clinical trial. During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 clinical trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug. 20 Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may conduct additional animal studies and also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or laboratory testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. U.S. Review and Approval Process The results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs through a two-tiered classification system, standard review and priority review. According to the current PDUFA performance goals for new molecular entity NDAs, the FDA endeavors to review and act on applications within ten months of the 60-day filing date under standard review, and within six months of the 60-day filing date under priority review. The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. 21 If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products which have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approval, including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing. Pediatric Use Even when not pursuing a pediatric indication, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that is adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug 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. In addition, any sponsor planning to submit an NDA or supplement subject to PREA must submit an initial pediatric study plan (iPSP), to the IND early in development. The iPSP must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric trials the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The FDA must then review the information submitted, consult with the sponsor, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, 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. Separately, the FDA may issue a Written Request for pediatric studies relating to a drug product if it has determined that information related to the use of the drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits. If the sponsor conducts the studies pursuant to the Written Request and submits the study reports within the specified timeline, the drug may be entitled to pediatric exclusivity. Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity which, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing exclusivity. Sponsors may submit a proposal asking the FDA to issue a Written Request for this purpose. U.S. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its designated orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation conveys certain financial incentives, including opportunities for grant funding, tax credits for certain clinical trial costs and certain user-fee waivers. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product demonstration of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Competitors may receive approval of different drugs for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same drug but for a different indication from that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Our product candidates could also be blocked from approval if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug for the same rare disease or condition before we do. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be 22 lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In April 2022, the FDA designated darovasertib as an orphan drug for the treatment of UM, including mUM, and we may seek orphan drug designation for additional product candidates in the future. Orphan drug designation does not guarantee that any product candidate will be approved for the designated rare disease or condition, if at all. U.S. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. New drug products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. A product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers. After an NDA is submitted for a product, including a product with a fast track designation and/or breakthrough therapy designation, the NDA may be eligible for priority review. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment or prevention of a serious disease or condition compared to marketed products. If the drug contains a new molecular entity, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take an action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date, compared with ten months under standard review. Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will require the sponsor to perform one or more adequate and well-controlled post-marketing confirmatory trials to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under the accelerated approval pathway if a trial required to verify the predicted clinical benefit fails to verify such benefit or if the applicant fails to conduct any required post-approval trial with due diligence. Recently, the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) enacted as part of the year-end omnibus spending bill in December 2022, included several reforms intended to expand the FDA’s ability to regulate products receiving accelerated approval, including by increasing the FDA’s oversight over the conduct of confirmatory trials. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these expedited development and review programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In November 2022, the FDA granted fast track designation to darovasertib in combination with crizotinib for treatment of adult patients with mUM, and in September 2023, the FDA granted two fast track designations to IDE161 for specific ovarian and breast cancer indications. We also expect to pursue breakthrough therapy designation and accelerated approval for darovasertib and may explore some of these opportunities for our other product candidates as appropriate. U.S. Post-approval Requirements 23 Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, certain manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP regulations and other laws and regulations. In addition, the FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us or our partners pursuant to FDA approvals will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market and imposes requirements and restrictions on drug manufacturers, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market, as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. U.S. Marketing Exclusivity Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity (NCE). A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug that contains the same active moiety. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the NCE NDA holder. The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for a change to a previously approved drug, such as a new indication or condition of use, submitted in an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, if one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Other types of non-patent exclusivity include seven-year orphan drug exclusivity and six-month pediatric exclusivity (each discussed above). FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics 24 We are collaborating or expect to collaborate with strategic partners or CMOs to manufacture and supply in vitro diagnostics to identify patients with biomarkers associated with the targeted therapeutics we are developing. These diagnostics, often referred to as 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. Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes – Class I, Class II or Class III – depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of regulations, referred to as General Controls, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), facility registration and product listing, reporting of AEs and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Class II devices are those that are subject to General Controls, as well as Special Controls, which can include performance standards, guidelines and postmarket surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics that do not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to new devices deemed not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by General Controls and Special Controls. Therefore, these devices are generally subject to the premarket approval (PMA), application process, which is generally more costly and time-consuming than the 510(k) process. Alternatively, a device might be the subject of a de novo classification request, which seeks marketing authorization and reclassification as a lower-risk Class I or Class II device for a new device that otherwise would automatically be regulated as a Class III device requiring a PMA approval. Specifically, medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application. If the use of a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a drug product, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic contemporaneously with the approval of the therapeutic product. In July 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for in vitro companion diagnostic devices. According to the guidance, for novel product candidates such as ours, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding drug candidate should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product labeling. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a drug 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 submit an IDE application for clinical testing of the device and comply with the applicable IDE requirements. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug 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 July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance document intended to further assist sponsors of therapeutic products and sponsors of in vitro companion diagnostic devices on issues related to co-development of these products. In December 2018, the FDA issued another draft guidance document to facilitate class labeling on in vitro companion diagnostic devices for oncology therapeutic products, under which a companion diagnostic’s labeling may identify a specific group or class of therapeutic products, rather than specific products, where scientifically appropriate. The FDA generally requires sponsors developing companion diagnostics intended to select patients who will respond to a specific cancer treatment to obtain approval of a PMA for that diagnostic contemporaneously with approval of the therapeutic, though 510(k) clearance or de novo classification are also possible. The FDA’s review of an in vitro companion diagnostic in conjunction with its review of a cancer therapeutic involves coordination between the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 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 than the 510(k) or de novo processes. PMAs must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and 25 well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, the applicant must demonstrate that the diagnostic produces reproducible results when the same sample is tested multiple times by multiple users at multiple laboratories. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the QMSR, which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the clinical trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. PMA approval is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trials or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval. If a companion diagnostic is the subject of a de novo classification request in lieu of a PMA, the FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo submission. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls sufficient to ensure a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. If the de novo request is granted, the new device may be legally marketed (in compliance with applicable regulatory controls), a new classification regulation for the device type will be established, and the device may serve as a predicate device for 510(k) submissions for future devices of the same type. After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QMSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States. Regulation Outside the United States To the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we would be subject to numerous and varying foreign laws and regulations regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization (MA), commercial sales and distribution of our products, and may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval set forth above, as well as additional country-specific regulation. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The approval process varies from country to country, can involve additional testing beyond that required by FDA, and may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing, promotion, and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. Non-clinical Studies and Clinical Trials 26 Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union (EU) are subject to significant regulatory controls. Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP), as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo , must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements. Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines on GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial. The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply. Marketing Authorization In order to market our future products in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application (MAA). There are two types of MAs: • “Centralized MAs” are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and are valid throughout the entire territory of the EU. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of medicinal products, such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products) and (iv) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as AIDS/HIV, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases and other immune dysfunctions. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU; and 27 • “National MAs” are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member states, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member state through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the United States. In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the PRIME scheme, a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Moreover, in the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all the conditions. Once the pending studies are provided, it can become a “standard” MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA ceases to be renewed. Furthermore, MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This MA is close to the conditional MA as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Data and Marketing Exclusivity In the EU, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight 28 years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical or biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Pediatric Development In the EEA, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (PIP) agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (PDCO). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral 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. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU member states and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan pharmaceutical products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity is granted. Orphan Medicinal Products The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from the orphan status, would not generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. In the EU, an application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of a MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved indication. During this market exclusivity period, competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicines that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The orphan exclusivity period 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 designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity, or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application, (ii) the applicant cannot supply sufficient quantities of the product, or (iii) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (EEA), which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties. 29 Regulation of Companion Diagnostics In the EU, in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD MDs), were regulated by the EU Directive on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Directive No. 98/79/EC, as amended) (IVDD), which regulated the placing on the market, the CE marking, the essential requirements, the conformity assessment procedures, the registration obligations for manufacturers and devices, as well as the vigilance procedure. IVD MDs had to comply with the requirements provided for in the IVDD, and with further requirements implemented at national level (as the case may be). The regulation of companion diagnostics is subject to further requirements since Regulation (EU) No 2017/746 (IVDR) became applicable on May 26, 2022 but there is a tiered system extending the grace period for many devices (depending on their risk classification) before they have to be fully compliant with the Regulation. The IVDR introduced a new classification system for companion diagnostics which are now specifically defined as diagnostic tests that support the safe and effective use of a specific medicinal product, by identifying patients that are suitable or unsuitable for treatment. Companion diagnostics will have to undergo a conformity assessment by a notified body. Before it can issue an EU certificate, the notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic to the medicinal product concerned if the medicinal product falls exclusively within the scope of the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicines, or the medicinal product is already authorized through the centralized procedure, or a MAA for the medicinal product has been submitted through the centralized procedure. For other substances, the notified body can seek the opinion from a national competent authorities or the EMA. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA. Healthcare Reform In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations as we begin to directly commercialize our products. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and fraud and abuse changes. Additionally, the ACA increases the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; requires collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposes a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected, expands of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research and establishes a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which will remain in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In addition, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which went into effect in 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs, which will first be effective in 2027, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. 30 The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025, imposes significant reductions in the funding of the Medicaid program. Such reductions are expected to decrease the number of persons enrolled in Medicaid and reduce the services covered by Medicaid, which could adversely affect our sales of any product candidate that we commercialize. The Trump administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the U.S. While it is unclear whether and how the Trump proposals will be implemented, the Trump policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for any product candidate that we commercialize. On the one hand, President Trump has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have reportedly entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the Trump administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies, and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as Globe and Guard. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most favored nation pricing. Imposing a rebate in the U.S. that is based on drug prices outside the U.S. would mark a drastic and unprecedented shift in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, and while the impact of the Globe and Guard proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant. Even if such initiatives are modified, delayed, or challenged, the uncertainty surrounding these policy proposals may impair our ability to forecast revenues, plan commercial launch activities, negotiate favorable contracts with payors, or make investment decisions regarding manufacturing scale-up and commercialization infrastructure. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures. Some U.S. states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, and to date one state has used its prescription drug affordability board to impose an upper payment limit. Some states are also seeking to implement general, across the board price caps for pharmaceuticals, or are seeking to regulate drug distribution. Some measures are also designed to encourage importation from other countries. These types of initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and other healthcare funding, and may otherwise affect the prices we may obtain or the frequency with which any drug candidate that we commercialize is prescribed or used. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare product candidates and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates once approved or additional pricing pressures. In the EU, similar developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our products, if approved. On December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment (HTA), amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022 and has been applicable since January 2025, with phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. Other Healthcare Laws Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, as well as similar foreign laws in the jurisdictions outside the United States. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs and imprisonment. 31 Data Privacy and Security Laws Pharmaceutical companies may be subject to numerous federal, state, and foreign laws, regulations and standards which govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information, and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales. In addition, in many countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In the EU, governments influence the price of products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. Member states may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. 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. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. We may face competition for our product candidates from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In addition, there may be importation of foreign products that compete with our own products, which could negatively impact our profitability. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that our products will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Human Capital At IDEAYA, we view our employees as among our most valuable assets. Our ability to hire and retain highly skilled professionals remains an important element to our success in discovering and developing targeted therapeutics. Our employees are at the heart of our values of passionate commitment, fearless innovation, courageous integrity, respectful teamwork, objective decision-making and empowered accountability. We offer our employees a challenging work 32 environment, ongoing skills development, attractive career advancement, and a culture that rewards entrepreneurial initiative and exceptional execution. We have assembled a team of cancer biologists, drug discovery chemists, translational biologists and drug development professionals with broad experience at leading oncology organizations. Our team is led by our Chief Executive Officer, Yujiro S Hata. We are also guided by a renowned scientific advisory board made up of key scientific and clinical thought leaders. We established an internal human resources department as part of our commitment to our human resources programs and our employee work experience, and we seek to hire and retain a highly qualified workforce in compliance with applicable federal and other laws and regulations. We draw from the largest pools of talent to help find the best people for our company. We believe the variety of experiences and perspectives that our employees bring to their work every day makes us stronger and more successful. As of December 31, 2025, females make up 48% of our workforce, 23% of our executive team, and 29% of our board of directors. As of December 31, 2025, we had a total of 145 employees. Of these employees, 112 were primarily engaged in research and development activities and 33 were primarily engaged in general and administrative activities. Of our total employees, 110 hold biology, chemistry or other relevant scientific degrees, including 55 Ph.D.s. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Corporate Information We were founded in June 2015 as a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 5000 Shoreline Court, Suite 300, South San Francisco, California 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 443-6209. Our website address is www.ideayabio.com. We file electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our SEC filings are available to the public on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. At our corporate website, www.ideayabio.com, we make available free of charge a variety of information for investors, including copies of these reports, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report and is not incorporated by reference herein. We have included our website address as an inactive textual reference only. We also use our website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. We use IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc.®, the IDEAYA logo, and other marks as trademarks in the United States and other countries. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and service marks and to those belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate in any way that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other entities’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by any other entity. 33 Item 1A. Ris k Factors Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, growth prospects and stock price. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. Many of the following risks and uncertainties are, and will be, exacerbated by the ongoing geopolitical conflicts, or banking sector volatility and any worsening of the global business and economic environment as a result. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that has no products approved for commercial sale. We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited operating history, makes it difficult to assess our future viability. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are an early-stage biopharmaceutical company, and we have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We currently have no products approved for commercial sale, have not generated any revenue from sales of products and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in June 2015. In addition, we have limited experience as a company and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry. Nine of our product candidates, are currently in the clinical stage in various phases. We have had significant operating losses since our inception. Our net losses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $113.7 million and $274.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $736.5 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. One of our product candidates is in late-phase clinical trials, one product candidate is in mid-phase clinical trial, and six product candidates are in early-stage clinical trials. We have multiple other product candidates in preclinical development, as well as early-stage research programs. With the exception of darovaserib for one indication, our product candidates will require substantial additional development time and resources before we will be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals. If approved, all our products will require substantial additional time and resources to begin generating revenue from product sales. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We also do not yet have a sales organization and are continuing to build out our commercial infrastructure and, accordingly, we will incur significant expenses to develop a sales organization and build out our commercial infrastructure in advance of regulatory approval and generating any commercial product sales. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to develop our product candidates and any future product candidates, conduct clinical trials and pursue research and development activities. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital. Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which will make our future results difficult to predict and could cause our results to fall below expectations. Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly, which will make it difficult for us to predict our future results. These fluctuations may occur due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including: • the timing and cost of, and level of investment in, research, technologies, acquisitions, development and commercialization activities, which may change from time to time; • the timing and status of enrollment for our clinical trials; • the timing of regulatory approvals, if any, in the United States and internationally; • the cost of manufacturing, as well as building out our supply chain, which may vary depending on the quantity of productions, and the terms of any agreements we enter into with third-party suppliers; • timing and amount of any option exercise, milestone, royalty or other payments we may or may not receive pursuant to any current or future collaboration or license agreement; 34 • timing and amount of any milestone, royalty or other payments due under any current or future collaboration or license agreement, including the License Agreement with Novartis, the Option and License Agreement with CRT and University of Manchester, the Option and License Agreement with Biocytogen Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., the License Agreement with Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd and the License Agreement with Les Laboratoires Servier; • coverage and reimbursement policies with respect to any future approved products, and potential future drugs that compete with our products; • the level of demand for any future approved products, which may vary significantly over time; • future accounting pronouncements or changes in our accounting policies; and • the timing and success or failure of preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates or competing product candidates, or any other change in the competitive landscape of our industry, including consolidation among our competitors or collaboration partners. The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated revenue or earnings guidance we may provide. We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and failure to obtain additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations. Since our inception, we have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in research and development activities for our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform and our initial preclinical and clinical product candidates. Preclinical studies and clinical trials and additional research and development activities will require substantial funds to complete. As of December 31, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $1.05 billion. We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future in connection with the research and development of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform, clinical and preclinical product candidates, and any other future product candidates we may choose to pursue, and commercialization of potentially approved drug products, as well as other corporate uses. Specifically, in the near term, we expect to incur substantial expenses as we advance our synthetic lethality product candidates through preclinical studies, advance our other products, such as darovasertib, IDE397, IDE849, IDE161, IDE275, IDE705, IDE892, IDE034 and IDE574 through clinical development, seek regulatory approval, prepare for and, if approved, proceed to commercialization, and continue our research and development efforts. These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and supply, as well as marketing and selling any products approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any preclinical study or clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will allow us to fund our planned operations for at least 12 months from the date of the issuance of the financial statements included in this Form 10-K. However, our operating plans and other demands on our capital resources may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may adversely affect our business. If we raise additional funds through licensing or collaboration arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. Attempting to secure additional financing may also divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. 35 Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including: • the scope, progress, results and costs of developing our product candidates or any other future product candidates, and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, including our ongoing clinical trials; • the scope, progress, results and costs related to the research and development of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform, including costs related to the development of our proprietary libraries and database of tumor genetic information and specific cancer-target dependency networks; • the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates or any future product candidates, or any applicable diagnostics; • the number and characteristics of any additional product candidates we develop or acquire; • the cost of coordinating and/or collaborating with certain diagnostic companies for manufacturing and supply of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates and any future product candidates; • the timing and amount of any milestone, royalty or other payments we are required to make pursuant to any current or future collaboration or license agreement, including under the License Agreement with Novartis or the Option and License Agreement with CRT and University of Manchester; Option and License Agreement with Biocytogen Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.; and License Agreement with Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.; • the timing and amount of any option exercise, milestone, royalty or other payments we may or may not receive pursuant to any current or future collaboration or license agreement, including under the Servier Agreement; • potential delays in our ongoing clinical programs as a result of any public health outbreaks or geopolitical conflicts; • the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and any future products we successfully commercialize; • the cost of commercialization activities, including the cost of building a sales force in anticipation of product commercialization and distribution costs; • any product liability or other lawsuits related to our product candidates or future approved products; • the expenses needed to attract, hire and retain skilled personnel; • the costs associated with being a public company; • the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing our intellectual property portfolio; and • the timing, receipt and amount of sales of any future approved products, if any. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, including geopolitical conflicts, health outbreaks, and/or banking sector volatility, and any worsening of the global business and economic environment, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Furthermore, we maintain the majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts with major U.S. and multi-national financial institutions, and our deposits at certain of these institutions exceed insured limits. Market conditions can impact the viability of these institutions. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to: • delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical trials or other research and development activities or eliminate one or more of our development programs altogether; or • delay, limit, reduce or terminate our efforts to establish manufacturing and sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize any of our products, if approved, or reduce our flexibility in developing or maintaining our sales and marketing strategy. Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity securities and payments received under our collaboration and licensing agreements. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to 36 do so through collaborations, licensing agreements, public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights or jointly own some aspects of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. Risks Related to Our Business Our business is dependent on the successful development of our product candidates, future product candidates, and companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates and future product candidates. Our current product candidates are in various stages of development and we are further developing our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform. We have no products approved for sale and our product candidates are in various stages of clinical development and will require additional clinical development, regulatory review and approval in each jurisdiction in which we intend to market them, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity, and significant sales and marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. Our other product candidates have not been tested in clinical trials. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. In the future, we may also become dependent on other product candidates that we may develop or acquire; however, given the current stages of development for most of our product candidates, it may be several years, if at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a product candidate sufficient to support approval for commercialization. We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar approval filings to a comparable foreign regulatory authority, for any product candidate. An NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe and effective for each desired indication. The NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. We cannot be certain that our current or future product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, even if they are successful in clinical trials, our product candidates or any future product candidates may not receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for current or future product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our revenue will depend, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights, as well as the availability of competitive products, whether there is sufficient third-party reimbursement and adoption by physicians. We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates both in the United States and in select foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval generally is similar in other countries, in order to obtain separate regulatory approval in other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Other countries also have their own regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, as well as pricing and distribution of drugs, and we may be required to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval and to comply with ongoing regulations in these jurisdictions. The clinical and commercial success of our current and any future product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following: • our ability to raise any additional required capital on acceptable terms, or at all; • our ability to develop and successfully utilize our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform; • timely and successful completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which may be significantly slower or cost more than we currently anticipate and will depend substantially upon the performance of third-party contractors; • acceptance of INDs by the FDA, or similar regulatory filing by a comparable foreign regulatory authority for the conduct of clinical trials of our product candidates and our proposed design of future clinical trials; 37 • whether we are required by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies beyond those planned to support approval of our product candidates; • our ability to timely execute our ongoing clinical trials and enroll a sufficient number of patients on a timely basis to evaluate our product candidates in clinical development; • acceptance of our proposed indications and primary endpoint assessments of our product candidates by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities; • the availability or successful development of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates or any other future product candidates; • our ability to make arrangements with third-party manufacturers for, or establish, commercial manufacturing capabilities, and to consistently manufacture our product candidates on a timely basis; • our ability, and the ability of any third parties with whom we contract, to remain in good standing with regulatory agencies and develop, validate and maintain commercially viable manufacturing processes that are compliant with cGMPs or similar foreign requirements; • our ability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities the safety, efficacy and acceptable risk-benefit profile of our product candidates; • the prevalence, duration and severity of potential side effects or other safety issues experienced with our product candidates, either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, or future approved products, if any; • the timely receipt of necessary marketing approvals from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities; • achieving and maintaining, and, where applicable, ensuring that our third-party contractors achieve and maintain, compliance with our contractual obligations and with all regulatory requirements applicable to our current product candidates or any future product candidates or approved products, if any; • the willingness of physicians, operators of hospitals and clinics and patients to use or adopt any approved products, as well as the willingness of physicians and other health-care providers to incorporate molecular diagnostics or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice; • our ability to successfully develop a commercial strategy and thereafter commercialize any approved products in the United States and internationally, whether alone or in collaboration with others; • the availability and level of coverage and adequate reimbursement from managed care plans, private insurers, government payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and other third-party payors for any of our product candidates that may be approved; • the convenience of our treatment or dosing regimen; • our ability to compete with other approved therapies, if any; • acceptance by physicians, payors and patients of the benefits, safety and efficacy of our product candidates or any future product candidates, if approved, including relative to alternative and competing treatments; • patient demand for any approved products; • our ability to establish and enforce intellectual property rights in and to our product candidates; and • our ability to avoid third-party patent interference, opposition, derivation, intellectual property challenges, intellectual property infringement claims or similar proceedings with respect to our intellectual property rights. These factors, many of which are beyond our control, could cause us to experience significant delays or an inability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our current or future product candidates. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any products. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of products to continue our business or achieve profitability. We may be unable to complete clinical trials and apply for market authorization for any of our product candidates. We will need to successfully initiate and complete our own Phase 1 clinical trials and later-stage and pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory body’s approval to market our product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings is a complicated process. As an organization, we have limited 38 experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not previously submitted any NDA or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any product candidate. In addition, we cannot be certain how many additional clinical trials of any of our product candidates will be required or whether the FDA will agree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials. We are required to comply with certain regulatory requirements, and the FDA may identify specific clinical or other development-related requirements that we must satisfy, as a condition to initiating or continuing our clinical trials; if we fail to meet such a requirement, the FDA may issue a clinical hold or designate other conditions on our clinical trials. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to regulatory submission of a marketing application for, and approval of, darovasertib, IDE397, IDE161, or any of our other product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing any of our product candidates. The successful development of targeted therapeutics, including therapeutics involving direct targeting of an oncogenic pathway and synthetic lethality therapeutics, including our portfolio of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitors, as well as any related diagnostics, is highly uncertain. Successful development of targeted therapeutics, including therapeutics involving direct targeting oncogenic pathways and synthetic lethality therapeutics, such as our portfolio of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitors, as well as any related diagnostics, is highly uncertain and is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform is based on new technologies and methods relating to drug target and biomarker identification, screening and validation, including Dual CRISPR genetic screening and bioinformatics and we have not, to date, sought regulatory approval for any therapeutics developed through our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we or our collaboration partners may incur for our current and future product candidates as we proceed through product discovery, identification, preclinical studies and clinical trials. Our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform is novel and may not be effective at identifying targets and/or biomarkers for product candidates. We therefore cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully identify additional product candidates or biomarkers, advance any of these additional product candidates or diagnostics for their associated biomarkers through the development process. Additionally, particular patient genetic alterations, such as mutations, deletions or fusions may not be functionally active genetic drivers of the disease. Further, whether a genetic alteration is functionally active may be difficult to ascertain from preclinical cancer models, may be tissue-type dependent and may vary from patient to patient within a specific indication. If that was the case, we would need to functionally validate such genetic alterations, for example, using in vitro and in vivo models, potentially across more than one tumor-tissue type and across multiple cell lines. If some of the genetic alterations are not functionally validated, this would reduce the size of our addressable patient population. Even if genetic alterations are preclinically validated, the relevance of these alterations may not translate into a human clinical setting, which could adversely impact our clinical trial results and our commercial opportunities. Targeted therapeutics that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including: • research or preclinical studies may show our targeted small molecule inhibitors or antagonists to be less effective than desired or to have harmful or problematic side effects or toxicities; • failure to accurately identify, validate or develop clinically relevant biomarkers for our targeted therapeutic product candidates; • clinical trial results may show our targeted therapeutic small molecule inhibitors to be less effective than expected based on preclinical studies (e.g., a clinical trial could fail to meet its primary endpoint(s)) or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities; • failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals or a delay in receiving such approvals. Among other things, such delays may be caused by slow enrollment in clinical trials, patients dropping out of trials, length of time to achieve trial endpoints, additional time requirements for data analysis, IND preparation, discussions with the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, an FDA or similar foreign regulatory authority request for additional preclinical or clinical data, or unexpected safety or manufacturing issues; 39 • manufacturing costs, formulation issues, pricing or reimbursement issues, or other factors that may make our targeted therapeutic small molecule inhibitors uneconomical; and • proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent our targeted therapeutic small molecule inhibitors, or the diagnostics for biomarkers associated with such small molecule inhibitors, from being commercialized. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform will result in the identification, development, and regulatory approval of any products. The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a decision by a regulatory authority may be difficult to predict for targeted therapeutic small molecule inhibitors, in large part because of the limited regulatory history associated with them. The clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other comparable foreign 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. The regulatory approval process for product candidates based on synthetic lethality 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 how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or other comparable regions of the world or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval, commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost-effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement levels for one any of our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be limited. In addition, if any of our products is approved for marketing, we will be subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding the submission of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, and will need to continue to comply (or ensure that our third-party providers comply) with cGMPs, or similar applicable foreign requirements and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, there is always the risk that we or a regulatory authority might identify previously unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as AEs, of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these requirements is costly and any failure to comply or other post-approval issues with our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Preclinical and clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates, which could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Before we can initiate clinical trials for our product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical studies to the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls, diagnostics for biomarkers for our product candidates and our proposed clinical trial protocol, as part of an IND application or similar regulatory filing. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any products, we, or our collaboration partners must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. In addition, we may rely in part on preclinical, clinical and quality data generated by contract research organizations (CROs) and other third parties for regulatory submissions for our product candidates. While we have or will have agreements governing these third parties’ services, we have limited influence over their actual performance. Further, pursuant to our license agreements with third party pharmaceutical companies, we have a right of reference to certain data for our regulatory filings forthe product that is the subject of the license agreement. 40 If these third parties fail to make data available to us, or, if applicable, make regulatory submissions in a timely manner, in each case pursuant to our agreements with them, our development programs may be significantly delayed and we may need to conduct additional studies or trials or collect additional data independently. In either case, our development costs would increase. We have various clinical trial collaboration and supply agreements with other pharmaceutical companies related to combination use of our products with products from those other pharmaceutical companies. If any of these strategic collaborators delay or fail to supply their compound in support of these combination trials, fail to sponsor or appropriately conduct the combination trial, or we fail to reach an agreement with any of these strategic collaborators for the continued supply of their compound beyond the terms of the current supply agreements, the development programs as pertaining to these combinations may be significantly delayed, and our development costs may increase. In each case, this may require us to establish additional supply agreements and rely upon third parties for supply of such combination agents, or if such combination agents are commercially available, in the absence of a supply agreement, we may incur the cost of purchasing such combination agents and may be at risk of having insufficient supply. We may initiate clinical trials in which our product candidates are combined with one or more other pharmaceutical agents that have not yet been approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities; in such situations, we may be relying on third parties for obtaining appropriate regulatory approvals and we may have no or limited influence over whether or not such regulatory approvals are achieved for such combination agents. We and our strategic collaborators also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any preclinical studies or clinical trials that could delay or prevent us or our strategic collaborators from successfully developing our product candidates, including: • we may be unable to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology, or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of clinical trials; • the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority disagreeing as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • delays in obtaining regulatory authorization to commence a clinical trial; • reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites; • obtaining IRB or ethics committee approval or positive opinion at each clinical trial site; • recruiting an adequate number of suitable patients to participate in a clinical trial, particularly if any public health outbreak, epidemic or pandemic leads to clinical site closures; • having patients complete a clinical trial or return for post-treatment follow-up; • clinical sites deviating from clinical trial protocol or dropping out of a clinical trial; • addressing subject safety concerns that arise during the course of a clinical trial; • adding a sufficient number of clinical trial sites; • obtaining sufficient quantities of product candidate for use in preclinical studies or clinical trials from third-party suppliers; or • accessing third-party products or product candidates for use in combination with our product candidates in preclinical studies or clinical trials, including third-party product candidates that have not yet been approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We and our strategic collaborators may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including: • we may receive feedback from regulatory authorities that requires us to modify the design of our clinical trials; • clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon our development programs; 41 • the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate; • we or our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements, fail to maintain adequate quality controls, or be unable to produce sufficient product supply to conduct and complete preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all; • we or our investigators might have to suspend or terminate clinical trials of our product candidates for various reasons, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, a finding that our product candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks; • the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate; • the quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate; • regulators may revise the requirements for approving our product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate; and • collaborators may conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us. If we or our strategic collaborators are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: • incur unplanned costs; • be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates or not obtain marketing approval at all; • obtain marketing approval in some countries and not in others; • obtain marketing approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired; • obtain marketing approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings; • be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements, which could be expensive and time-consuming; or • have the treatment removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval. We and our strategic collaborators could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for such trial or by the FDA or another comparable foreign regulatory authority. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs or other foreign regulatory authorities or ethics committees for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. For example, the FDA has issued draft guidance and launched programs aiming to reform and modernize the dose optimization procedures used by clinical trial sponsors during the development of oncology drugs. Although these efforts have not yet resulted in any formal changes to the FDA’s regulations or policies, changes in the FDA’s thinking with respect to dose selection and optimization could require us to change the design of our planned or ongoing clinical trials or otherwise conduct additional preclinical, clinical or manufacturing studies beyond those we currently anticipate, which could increase our costs and/or delay the development of our product candidates. As another example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, 42 to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our development plans. Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for certain of our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the possibility that we could be required to conduct additional preclinical studies before initiating any clinical trials, the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with comparable foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. Principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or a regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the clinical trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of the marketing application we submit. Any such delay or rejection could prevent or delay us from commercializing our current or future product candidates. If any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates are delayed or terminated, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to ultimately generate revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and regulatory approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our product candidates and any future product candidates prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and approach would have little, if any, value, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, for some of our programs, in the future we intend to conduct basket trials, which will be designed to include multiple clinically defined populations under one investigational protocol, although each population is enrolled and analyzed separately. A basket trial design could potentially decrease the time to study new populations by decreasing administrative burden, however, these trials may not provide opportunities for accelerated regulatory pathways, and do not overcome limitations to extrapolating data from the experience in one disease to other diseases, because safety and efficacy results in each indication are analyzed separately. Accordingly, clinical success in a basket trial, or any trial in one indication, may not predict success in another indication. In contrast, in the event of an adverse safety issue, clinical hold, or other adverse finding in one or more indications being tested, such event could adversely affect our trials in the other indications and may delay or prevent completion of the clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials for similar indications that we are pursuing due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval of any products. Synthetic lethality represents an emerging class of precision medicine targets, and negative perceptions of the efficacy, safety or tolerability of this class of targets, including any that we develop, could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, advance our product candidates or obtain regulatory approvals. Aside from PARP inhibitors, such as Lynparza, Rubraca, Zejula and Talzenna, no synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitor therapeutics have been approved to date by the FDA or other comparable regulators. AEs in future clinical trials of our product candidates or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other 43 AEs in the field of synthetic lethality, or other products that are perceived to be similar to synthetic lethality, such as those related to gene therapy or gene editing, could result in a decrease in the perceived benefit of one or more of our programs, increased regulatory scrutiny, decreased confidence by patients and CROs in our product candidates, and less demand for any product that we may develop. Our substantial pipeline of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitor product candidates could result in a greater quantity of reportable AEs or other reportable negative clinical outcomes, manufacturing reportable events or material clinical events that could lead to clinical delays or holds by the FDA or applicable regulatory authority or other clinical delays, any of which could negatively impact the perception of one or more of our synthetic lethality programs, as well as our business as a whole. In addition, responses by U.S. federal, state or foreign governments to negative public perception may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop any product candidates or commercialize any approved products, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations, or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, and may delay or impair the development of our product candidates and commercialization of any approved products or demand for any products we may develop. Tissue-type agnostic basket trials are an emerging clinical approach that may result in delays in clinical development, additional regulatory requirements and delays in, or the prevention of, our ability to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates. We initiated a Phase 1/2 tissue-type agnostic basket trial with darovasertib in June 2019 and may also utilize a basket trial approach in clinical trials for other product candidates. Basket trials allow us to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a product candidate in a variety of tumor types with a specific molecular profile. We believe that this clinical approach provides many benefits, however, there are limited precedents, and as a result, there a number of inherent risks. There is limited precedent for the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and grant tissue-type agnostic approvals. Furthermore, as clinical trials increasingly use classification of tumors by molecular profiling, the FDA or other regulatory authority may change or issue guidance or adopt a policy that adversely affects requirements for basket trials. In the event that such guidance or policy has an effect on any of our protocols or trials, as the case may be, it may result in the delay of clinical development, or require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. Even if we obtain a tissue-type agnostic approval for one or more of our product candidates, there is limited precedent for obtaining reimbursement. Third-party payors may reimburse at different levels across tumor tissue types and indicates, or not at all. We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials given the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being developed. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our and our collaboration partners’ ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the clinical trial until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including: • the patient eligibility and exclusion criteria defined in the protocol; • the size and nature of the patient population required for analysis of the clinical trial’s primary endpoints; • the proximity of patients to clinical trial sites; • the design of the clinical trial; • the risk that enrolled patients will not complete a clinical trial; • our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; • clinical trial investigators’ willingness to continue enrolling patients and patients’ willingness to complete protocol assessments during any public health outbreak, epidemic or pandemic; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the safety of the product candidate; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new therapies that may be approved for the indications we are investigating as well as any drugs under development; and 44 • our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents. We will be required to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients for each of our clinical trials. Potential patients for any planned clinical trials may not be adequately diagnosed or identified with the diseases which we are targeting or may not meet the entry criteria for such trials. We also may encounter difficulties in identifying and enrolling patients with a stage of disease appropriate for our planned clinical trials and monitoring such patients adequately during and after treatment. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we are unable to locate a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. In addition, the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. In addition, our clinical trials may compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. As a result of any public health outbreak, competition for potential patients in our trials may be further exacerbated as a result of any clinical site closures. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is already limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Furthermore, certain conditions for which we plan to evaluate our current development candidates are rare diseases, such as mUM, with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical trials. The timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials, once established, will further limit the pool of available trial participants. In addition, our clinical trials may be affected by any public health outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed. For example, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, several of our sites halted new enrollment for several months in 2020 before resuming enrollment. Some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols, and data collected may be incomplete, if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, the ability to recruit and retain patients, and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to infectious diseases, may be delayed or disrupted, which may adversely impact our clinical trial operations. If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials for any reason, including the existence of other approved therapies or concurrent clinical trials for similar patient populations, if they are unwilling to enroll in a clinical trial with a placebo-controlled design, or we otherwise have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will have limited influence over their actual performance. We cannot assure you that we will not experience delays in enrollment, which would result in the delay of completion of such trials beyond our expected timelines. Our product candidates or any future product candidates may be associated with undesirable side effects or AEs that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any. As with most pharmaceutical products, use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects or AEs which can vary in severity from minor reactions to death and in frequency from infrequent to prevalent. Undesirable side effects or unacceptable toxicities caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. Furthermore, certain of our product candidates may be co-administered with third-party approved or experimental therapies in our clinical trials, such as darovasertib with crizotinib or IDE397 with PRMT5 inhibitors. These combinations may have additional side effects. The uncertainty resulting from the use of our product candidates in combination with other therapies may make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials. 45 To date, only three of our product candidates, IDE397, darovasertib, and IDE161 have been tested in clinical trials, and they have been observed to be generally well tolerated, with certain drug-related SAEs and AEs being reported for darovasertib, as monotherapy and in combination with crizotinib, for IDE397, and for IDE161. If unacceptable side effects arise in the further development of our product candidates, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities (the IRBs) at the institutions in which the clinical trials are being conducted could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete any of our clinical trials or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. In addition, even if we successfully advance our product candidates or any future product candidates into and through clinical trials, such trials will likely only include a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure to our product candidates. Some adverse effects of our product candidates may not be uncovered until a significantly larger number of patients are exposed to the product candidate. Further, any clinical trials may not be sufficient to determine the effect and safety consequences of taking our product candidates over a multi-year period. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: • regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product; • we may be required to recall a product or change the way such product is administered to patients; • additional restrictions may be imposed on the marketing of the particular product or the manufacturing processes for the product or any component thereof; • regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such as a “black box” warning or a contraindication; • we may be required to restrict the use of the product, including implementing a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or to create a Medication Guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients or similar risk management measures; • we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; • the product may become less competitive; and • our reputation may suffer. Any of the foregoing events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and result in the loss of significant revenues to us, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates prove to be unsafe, our entire technology platform and pipeline could be affected, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If we are unable to successfully develop molecular diagnostics for biomarkers that enable patient selection and/or that demonstrate drug-target interaction, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of our product candidates. A key component of our strategy includes the use of molecular diagnostics to guide patient selection and/or to confirm target engagement of our product candidates. In some cases, a diagnostic may be commercially available, for example, on a tumor-profiling panel. If not already commercially available, we may collaborate with diagnostic companies for the development of biomarkers associated with our product candidates. We may have difficulty in establishing or maintaining such development relationships, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. There are also several risks associated with biomarker identification and validation. We, in collaboration with any diagnostic partners, may not be able to identify predictive biomarkers or pharmacodynamic biomarkers for one or more of our programs. We may not be able to validate potential biomarkers (e.g., certain genetic mutations) or their functional relevance preclinically in relevant in vitro or in vivo models. Data analytics and information from databases that we rely on for 46 identifying or validating some of our biomarker-target relationships may not accurately reflect potential patient populations. Potential biomarkers, even if validated preclinically, may not be functionally effective or validated in human clinical trials. If we, in collaboration with these parties, are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for our product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of our product candidates may be adversely affected. The development of companion diagnostic products requires a significant investment of working capital, and may not result in any future income. This could require us to raise additional funds, which could dilute our current investors or impact our ability to continue our operations in the future. There are also risks associated with diagnostics that are commercially available, including that we may not have access to reliable supply for such diagnostics. The failure to obtain required regulatory approvals or certification for any companion diagnostic tests that we may pursue may prevent or delay approval of our product candidates. Moreover, the commercial success of any of our product candidates may be tied to the regulatory approval or certification, market acceptance and continued availability of a companion diagnostic. The FDA regulates in vitro companion diagnostics as medical devices that will likely be subject to and require prospective validation in clinical trials in conjunction with the clinical trials for our product candidates, and which will require regulatory clearance or approval prior to commercialization. We plan to collaborate with third parties for the development, testing and manufacturing of these companion diagnostics, the application for and receipt of any required regulatory clearances or approvals, and the commercial supply of these companion diagnostics. Our third-party collaborators may fail to obtain the required regulatory clearances or approvals, which could prevent or delay approval of our product candidates. In addition, the commercial success of any of our product candidates may be tied to and dependent upon the receipt of required regulatory clearances or approvals of the companion diagnostic. Even if a companion diagnostic is approved, we will rely on the continued ability of any third-party collaborator to make the companion diagnostic commercially available to us on reasonable terms in the relevant geographies. Furthermore, if commercial tumor profiling panels are not able to be updated to include additional tumor-associated genes, or if clinical oncologists do not incorporate molecular or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice, we may not be successful in developing or commercializing our existing product candidates or any future product candidates. Further, approval, clearance or certification of companion diagnostics may be subject to further legislative or regulatory reforms notably in the EU. On May 25, 2017, the new In Vitro Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) entered into force. The IVDR repeals and replaces the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states, regulations are directly applicable, i.e., without the need for adoption of EU member states laws implementing them, in all EU member states and are intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EU member states. The IVDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for in vitro diagnostic medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. The IVDR became applicable on May 26, 2022. Following subsequent legislative changes, European institutions adopted a “progressive” roll-out of the IVDR to prevent disruption in the supply of in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Therefore, the IVDR applies since May 26, 2022 but there is a tiered system extending the grace period for many in vitro diagnostic medical devices (depending on their risk classification) before they have to be fully compliant with the Regulation. These requirements are in active implementation and may change as the European Commission adopts additional implementing acts and considers targeted revisions to related in vitro diagnostic medical devices rules. The regulation of companion diagnostics is subject to further requirements since the IVDR became applicable as it introduced a new classification system for companion diagnostics which are now specifically defined as diagnostic tests that support the safe and effective use of a specific medicinal product, by identifying patients that are suitable or unsuitable for treatment. Companion diagnostics will have to undergo a conformity assessment by a notified body. Before it can issue an EU certificate, the notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic to the medicinal product concerned if the medicinal product falls exclusively within the scope of the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicines, or the medicinal product is already authorized through the centralized procedure, or a marketing authorization application for the medicinal product has been submitted through the centralized procedure. For other substances, the notified body can seek the opinion from a national competent authorities or the EMA. These modifications may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearances, approvals or certifications for our companion diagnostics or to manufacture, market or distribute our products after clearance, approval or certification is obtained. 47 Interim, “topline” and preliminary data from our clinical trials may differ materially from the final data. From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or “topline” data from our clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same clinical trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such topline results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data is available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and the value of our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is typically a summary of extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business. If the topline data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or any future product candidates. The denial or delay of such approval would prevent or delay commercialization of our product candidates and adversely impact our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. The process of obtaining regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, as well as the target indications and patient population. Approval policies or regulations may change, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the drug approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. Neither we nor any collaborator or any future collaborator, is permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States or abroad until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA or similar regulatory approvals from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Foreign regulatory authorities may require a similar demonstration before we can obtain approval to commercialize a product candidate abroad. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including, but not limited to: • such authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • negative or ambiguous results from our clinical trials, or results may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency for approval; • serious and unexpected drug-related side effects may be experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our product candidates; 48 • the population studied in the clinical trial may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure safety in the full population for which we seek approval; • such authorities may not accept clinical data from trials which are conducted at clinical facilities or in countries where the standard of care is potentially different from that of the United States; • we are unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks; • the FDA’s or the applicable comparable foreign regulatory agency’s non-approval of the formulation, labeling or specifications of our product candidates or any of our future product candidates; • such authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials; • such authorities could question the integrity of data obtained in our current or future clinical trials, for example, due to missed protocol procedures; • such authorities may not agree that the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere, and such authorities may impose requirements for additional preclinical studies or clinical trials; • such authorities may disagree regarding the formulation, labeling and/or the specifications of our product candidates; • such authorities may only approve indications that are significantly more limited than what we apply for and/or with other significant restrictions on distribution and use; • such authorities may find deficiencies in the manufacturing processes or facilities of our third-party manufacturers with which we or any of our collaborators or any potential future collaborators, contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and • the approval policies or regulations of such authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our or any of our collaborators’ clinical data insufficient for approval. With respect to foreign markets, approval procedures vary among countries and, in addition to the foregoing risks, may involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, events raising questions about the safety of certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new drugs based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us or any of our collaborators or any potential future collaborators, from commercializing any products. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we eventually complete clinical trials and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for a product, the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or the implementation of a REMS, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority also may approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects. We may develop our product candidates and future product candidates in combination with other therapies, and safety or supply issues with combination-use products may delay or prevent development and approval of our product candidates. We may develop our product candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies, both approved and unapproved. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities 49 outside of the United States could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidates or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our product candidates for use in combination with other drugs or for indications other than cancer. Similarly, if the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially. We may also evaluate our product candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or a similar regulatory authority outside of the United States. We may be unable to effectively identify and collaborate with third parties for the evaluation of our product candidates in combination with their therapies. We will not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. The regulations prohibiting the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA and other foreign government agencies. In addition, there are additional risks similar to the ones described for our products currently in development and clinical trials that result from the fact that such cancer therapies are unapproved, such as the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approval. If the FDA or a similar regulatory authority outside of the United States does not approve these other drugs or revokes approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with any product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market such product. We may be unable to obtain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for marketing exclusivity. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. In the United States, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding, tax credits for certain clinical trial costs and user-fee waivers. If a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances. In the EU, the European Commission grants orphan designation on the basis of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products opinion. A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment, of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Moreover, upon grant of a marketing authorization and assuming the requirement for orphan designation are also met at the time the marketing authorization is granted, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. Although we have received orphan drug designation for darovasertib in UM, there is no guarantee that we will obtain approval or orphan drug exclusivity for the product. Any orphan drug exclusivity that we do obtain may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different therapies can be approved for the same condition and the same therapy could be approved for different conditions. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to provide greater safety, greater effectiveness or a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Moreover, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later 50 determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In the EU, during the exclusivity period, marketing authorizations may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if: (i) the applicant can establish that the second medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorized is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan medicinal product already authorized; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the orphan medicinal product grants its consent; or (iii) if the marketing authorization holder of the orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of product. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years, if, at the end of the fifth year a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation (i.e. the prevalence of the condition has increased above the orphan designation threshold or it is judged that the product is sufficiently profitable so as not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity). Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we may seek additional orphan drug designations for applicable indications for our current and any future product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Even if we do receive such designations, there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the benefits of those designations. Although we have received fast track and breakthrough therapy designations for certain of our product candidates, these programs may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review process, and they do not guarantee we will receive approval for any product candidate. If a product is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for fast track designation. The sponsor of a fast track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant fast track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Although the FDA has granted fast track designation to darovasertib in combination with crizotinib for treatment of adult patients with mUM and to IDE161 for treatment of adult patients with specific breast cancer or ovarian cancers and we may seek additional designation for other product candidates in the future, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may rescind the fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. We have also received breakthrough therapy designation for darovasertib for the neoadjuvant treatment of adult patients with primary UM for whom enucleation has been recommended. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for rolling review and priority review. Like fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe a product candidate we develop meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. While we have received breakthrough therapy designation for darovasertib for the neoadjuvant treatment of adult patients with primary UM for whom enucleation has been recommended, and may in the future receive breakthrough therapy designations for other product candidates, it may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs developed under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if a product candidate we develop qualifies as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification and rescind the designation. We may attempt to secure approval from the FDA through the use of the accelerated approval pathway. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw any accelerated approval we have obtained. 51 We may in the future seek accelerated approval for our one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit or are not completed in a timely manner, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug on an expedited basis. Recent legislative reforms have further increased the FDA’s oversight over the conduct of confirmatory trials. Prior to seeking accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval for our product candidates, there can be no assurance that such application will be accepted or that any expedited review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for a product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, if any, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace. We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. Most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do and we may not be able to successfully compete. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries in particular are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. We compete with a variety of multinational biopharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies, as well as technology being developed at universities and other research institutions. Our competitors have developed, are developing or will likely develop product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community and any new treatments that enter the market. We believe that a significant number of product candidates are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of diseases and other conditions for which we may try to develop product candidates. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. We believe that while our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform and our scientific and technical know-how give us a competitive advantage in this space, competition from many sources remains. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnological and oncology therapeutics companies, as well as universities and other research institutions. Our commercial opportunity and success will be reduced or eliminated if competing products emerge that are safer, more effective, or less expensive than the therapeutics we develop. Our competitors may develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. For darovasertib, we are not aware of other companies actively developing clinical-stage therapeutics directed to PKC as a target for solid tumors. Varsity Pharma is preclinically evaluating a PKC inhibitor in CLL, and Aquilon has nominated PKC theta as a target for preclinical development. Additionally, Windtree Therapeutics is advancing a preclinical-stage atypical PKC iota inhibitor, including both topical and oral formulations, for potential treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma. We are aware of several other companies conducting research and development of potential therapies for primary UM or for mUM 52 based on other targets and approaches. Replimune has initiated a potentially registration-enabling trial for RP-2, an oncolytic immunotherapy. iOnctura has initiated a Phase 2 trial for Roginolisib, an allosteric PI3K delta inhibitor, in 2L+ mUM. Other programs in development for mUM include Novartis’ DYP688, an ADC, with a GNAQ-11 inhibitor payload in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, and Immatics’ anzu-cel/IMA203, a PRAME-targeting TCR-based, T cell therapy. Aura Biosciences is developing bel-sar, a virus-like drug conjugate (VDC), as local treatment for early-stage choroidal melanoma. Additionally, Immunocore has commercialized Tebentafusp, also known under its branded name as Kimmtrak, for the treatment of adult patients with HLA*A2(+), unresectable or metastatic UM. For IDE849, our competitors include companies developing DLL3-targeting therapies using various therapeutic modalities, including bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), ADCs, chimeric antigen receptor (T-cell) therapies, and radiopharmaceuticals. Amgen received accelerated approval from the FDA in May 2024 for Tarlatamab (branded name Imdelltra), a DLL3-CD3 BiTE. Zelgen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo are developing drugs with a similar mechanism of action, in Phase 3 or Phase 2 studies. We are aware of several companies developing DLL3 ADCs with Topoisomerase I inhibitor payloads. Zai Lab recently initiated a Phase 3 trial for ZL-1310 in relapsed SCLC and Roche, Zhang Jiang, and Baili are conducting Phase 1 studies. In radiopharmaceuticals, Abdera, Molecular Partners, and Novartis are conducting Phase 1 clinical trials and several other companies are pursuing preclinical development of DLL3-targeting radiotherapies. For IDE034, we are not aware of any other companies developing bi-specific ADCs targeting both B7H3 and PTK7, however many companies are developing mono-antigen ADCs targeting either B7H3 or PTK7. Merck, Hansoh/GSK, Medilink, and Minghui are evaluating B7H3 ADCs in Phase 3 clinical trials. Several other companies have B7H3 ADCs in earlier phases of clinical development, including BeOne, Duality, Innovent, Mabwell and MacroGenics. Furthermore, Day One, Kelun, Kivu and Lilly are evaluating PTK7 ADCs in Phase 1 studies. For IDE161, 858 Therapeutics is conducting a Phase 1 clinical trial for its small molecule PARG inhibitor, ETX-19477. Several other companies have more recently initiated Phase 1 studies for PARG inhibitors, including Danatlas, Evopoint, FoRx, and SynRx. Additionally, several companies are conducting preclinical research to develop PARG inhibitors, including Aigen, Alivexis, Azkarra, Nodus Oncology, Satya Pharma Innovations, and QuantX. For IDE705, Artios Pharma is developing a Pol Theta inhibitor, designated as ART-6043, in a Phase 1/2 study. Several other companies have initiated Phase 1 studies for Pol Theta inhibitors, including Danatlas, Gilead, Moma Therapeutics, Simcere, and SynRx. Additionally, Breakpoint Therapeutics and QuantX have Pol Theta inhibitors in IND-enabling studies. For IDE397, Servier is evaluating a small molecule MAT2A inhibitor designated as S095035 in a Phase 1/2 trial. Insilico Medicine and BeOne Medicines have also initiated Phase 1 trials for their small molecule MAT2A inhibitors called ISM3412 and BG-89894, respectively. Additionally, Genhouse Bio, Hanmi, ScinnoHub, SK Biopharma and Shouyao have small molecule MAT2A inhibitors in preclinical development. For IDE892, we are aware of many companies developing PRMT5 inhibitors in both clinical and preclinical stages. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) has initiated Phase 2/3 trials for navlimetostat (BMS-986504) in first line MTAP-deleted NSCLC and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The next most advanced assets include AMG-193 from Amgen, AZD-3470 from AstraZeneca, BGB-58067 from BeOne, and vopimetostat (TNG462) from Tango, which are all in Phase 1/2 studies. At least ten other companies have initiated Phase 1 clinical trials and more than ten companies are advancing preclinical PRMT5 inhibitors. For IDE574, Pfizer is evaluating a KAT6/7 dual inhibitor in a Phase 1 clinical trial in addition to KAT6A inhibitor prifetrastat (PF-07248144) in a Phase 3 clinical trial. Several other companies are also developing drugs directed to KAT6 only, including Hengrui, Menarini and Olema, which are conducting Phase 1 trials. Additionally, Isosterix, Prelude, Qubit and several others are developing preclinical KAT6 inhibitors. For IDE275, Vividion is developing a covalent WRN inhibitor designated as VVD-133214 in a Phase 1 trial. Novartis and Nimbus Therapeutics are evaluating non-covalent WRN inhibitors, called HRO-761 and NDI-219216 respectively, in Phase 1 trials. Eikon and MOMA Therapeutics also more recently initiated Phase 1 trials for WRN inhibitors. Additionally, several companies are conducting preclinical research to develop WRN inhibitors, including Genhouse, Insilico, and Puhe, among others. For our preclinical pipeline of synthetic lethality therapeutics, potential competition includes established companies as well as earlier-stage emerging biotechnology companies. Multiple established companies have been involved with research and development in synthetic lethality, such as AstraZeneca (Lynparza), Pfizer (Talzenna), GSK (Zejula) and Roche. Additionally, several other early-stage companies are developing synthetic lethality therapeutics, including 858 Therapeutics, 53 Artios, Breakpoint Therapeutics, Eikon, FoRx Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, Ryvu Therapeutics, Tango, Vividion, and Xpose. Development decisions and data from clinical trials of our competitors may adversely impact clinical development of our product candidates, and may additionally or alternatively have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or business prospects. Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and a gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development. In some cases, we may also develop diagnostics to enable relevant biomarker screening for clinical and commercial purposes in connection with our product candidates. If not already commercially available, we anticipate working in collaboration with diagnostic companies for this development, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales and supply resources or experience than we do. If we successfully obtain approval for any product candidate, we will face competition based on many different factors, including the safety and effectiveness of our products, the ease with which our products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, coverage, reimbursement and patent position. Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competing products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. We expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we will need to increase the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing growth. As of December 31, 2025, we had 145 employees. We will need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, finance and other resources in order to manage our operations and clinical trials, continue our development activities, submit for regulatory approval and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates. Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively execute our growth strategy requires that we: • manage our preclinical studies and clinical trials effectively; • identify, recruit, retain, incentivize and integrate additional employees, including sales personnel; • manage our internal development and operational efforts effectively while carrying out our contractual obligations to third parties; and • continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reports systems and procedures. There is no assurance that any of these increases in scale, expansion of personnel, equipment, software and computing capacities, or process enhancements will be successfully implemented, or that we will have adequate space in our laboratory facilities to accommodate such required expansion. 54 We currently have no sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell any products effectively, if approved, or generate product revenue. While we continue to build out our commercial organization, we currently do not have a sales organization or a fully staffed marketing group. In order to commercialize any product, if approved, in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. In advance of any of our product candidates receiving regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product candidate, which will be expensive and time-consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain, and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. Under the Servier Licensing Agreement, Servier will be responsible for the commercialization of darovasertib outside of the U.S. We may choose to collaborate with additional third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses. If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific and commercial personnel, our business may be materially and adversely affected. Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical, scientific and commercial personnel. We are highly dependent upon our senior management, particularly our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as our senior scientists and other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of any products, initiation or completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of our product candidates or any other product candidates. Competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical fields is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our clinical development and if we initiate commercial activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output. Our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. We are exposed to the risk that our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulatory bodies; manufacturing standards; U.S. federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, data privacy and security laws and other similar non-U.S. laws; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained during clinical trials, the creation of fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, or illegal misappropriation of product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third-parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. In addition, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including, without limitation, the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare 55 programs or healthcare programs in other jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, individual imprisonment, other sanctions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business. Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials owned by us, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and any third-party manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our research and development efforts, commercialization efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, product development and manufacturing efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or waste. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials and pollution insurance to cover us for certain biological or hazardous waste exposure and contamination situations, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We attempt to distribute our technology, biology, execution and financing risks across a range of therapeutic classes, disease states, programs and technologies. Due to the significant resources required for the development of our broad portfolio of programs, and depending on our ability to access capital, we must make certain risk assessments and prioritize development of certain product candidates. Moreover, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Our organization is committed to a broad approach to precision medicine that seeks to maximize our integrated biomarker and small molecule drug discovery capabilities. Our current portfolio consists of multiple programs, extending across multiple classes of precision medicine, including direct targeting of oncogenic pathways and synthetic lethality. Together, these programs require significant capital investment. The directly targeted therapy programs are at various stages of preclinical and clinical development, and our synthetic lethality programs are in the target identification, validation, lead optimization, and clinical stages of development. We seek to maintain a process of prioritization and resource allocation to maintain an optimal balance between advancing and expanding our synthetic lethality and direct targeting programs. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on specific product candidates, indications and discovery programs. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates that could have had greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and 56 product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Furthermore, as our programs progress, we or others may determine: that certain of our risk allocation decisions were incorrect or insufficient; that we made platform level technology mistakes; that individual programs or our approach to synthetic lethality or precision medicine in general has technology or biology risks that were unknown or underappreciated; that our choices on how to build our organizational infrastructure to drive our expansion will result in an inability to manufacture our products for clinical trials or otherwise impede our manufacturing capabilities; or that we have allocated resources in such a way that large investments are not recovered and capital allocation is not subject to rapid re-direction. All of these risks may relate to our current or future precision medicine programs or companion diagnostics, and in the event material decisions in any of these areas turn out to have been incorrect or under-optimized, we may experience a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics may materially and adversely affect our business and operations. Actual or threatened public health outbreaks may in the future adversely affect, among other things, our research and development efforts, clinical trial operations, manufacturing and supply chain operations, commercial operations, administrative personnel, third-party service providers, and business partners. A widespread health outbreak could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from a future public health outbreak could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock. Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain, or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent products from being developed, approved, or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which may adversely affect our business. The ability of the FDA and other government agencies to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, including a prolonged government shutdown, or such as the European Medicines Agency following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may cause significant regulatory delays and, therefore, delay our efforts to seek approvals and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster. Our corporate headquarters is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which in the past has experienced both severe earthquakes and wildfires. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters or other facilities, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our enterprise financial systems or manufacturing resource planning and enterprise quality systems, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business 57 continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, the third parties on which we depend, including suppliers, contract manufacturers and CROs are similarly vulnerable to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and SAEs. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, manufacturing arrangements or interfere with a preclinical study or clinical trial, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. We are currently operating in a period of economic uncertainty and capital markets disruption, which has been significantly impacted by geopolitical conflicts and potential changes in global trade policies, including tariffs. Our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected by any negative impact on the global economy and capital markets resulting from geopolitical conflicts and potential changes in global trade policies, including tariffs. U.S. and global markets may experience volatility and disruption due to geopolitical conflicts, such as the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine and the sanctions and export controls against Russia, Russian banks and certain Russian individuals that followed. These geopolitical conflicts have resulted and could continue to result in disruptions to trade, commerce, pricing stability, credit availability and supply chain continuity in both Europe and globally, and have introduced significant uncertainty into global markets. Such risks and disruptions may negatively impact our supply chain, manufacturing arrangements, preclinical studies, clinical trials and our access to capital markets and ability to finance operations, which could have a materially adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Moreover, during the last few years, there have also been significant changes to U.S. and other countries’ trade policies, export control laws, sanctions, legislation, treaties and tariffs. There is significant uncertainty about the future of trade relationships around the world, including potential changes to trade laws and regulations, trade policies, and tariffs. Some foreign governments, including China, have instituted retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods and have indicated a willingness to impose additional tariffs on U.S. products. Other countries have in the past threatened retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. products. We cannot predict what additional actions may ultimately be taken by the United States or other governments with respect to tariffs or trade relations, what products may be subject to such actions (including subject to U.S. export control restrictions), or what actions may be taken by the other countries in retaliation. The imposition of additional tariffs or other trade barriers, together with any future downturns in the global economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect our financial performance. Additionally, it is possible that government policy changes and uncertainty about such changes could increase market volatility and currency exchange rate fluctuations. As a result of these dynamics, we cannot predict the impact to our business of any future changes to the United States’ or other countries’ trading relationships or the impact of new laws or regulations adopted by the United States or other countries. Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties The commercial success of darovasertib outside the United States will depend largely on the commercialization efforts of Servier, which holds the license for such commercialization. If Servier is unable to perform in accordance with the terms of the Servier License Agreement, our potential to generate future revenue from territories outside the United States would be significantly reduced or delayed and our business could be materially and adversely harmed. Under the terms of the Servier License Agreement, we have limited ability to influence and control Servier’s commercialization efforts for darovasertib. If Servier does not perform in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Servier License Agreement, the commercialization of darovasertib in territories outside the United States could be adversely impacted. Any legal or equitable remedies that we may obtain in the event of Servier’s breach of the Servier License Agreement may not adequately compensate us for the losses caused by Servier. If the Servier License Agreement is terminated, we may have the right to assume commercialization efforts for darovasertib in territories outside the United States. Assumption of sole responsibility for commercialization of darovasertib in territories outside the United States will greatly increase our expenditures, which could limit the potential to generate future profit from the commercialization of darovasertib in territories outside the United States, and our business could be materially and adversely affected. We rely on third parties to conduct certain of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials and intend to rely on third parties in the conduct of all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, it may delay or prevent us from seeking or obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing our current or future product candidates. 58 We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies that comply with the regulatory requirements known as good laboratory practice (GLP) requirements. We also do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as GCP, requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the clinical trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our product candidates properly and on time. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and our GCP-compliant clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. Further, some of these agreements may also be terminated by such third parties on short notice, or under certain circumstances, including our insolvency. If the third parties conducting our preclinical studies or our clinical trials do not adequately perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience significant business challenges, disruptions or failures, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate, and our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. We rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical development and expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, including for any future approved commercial products. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and related raw materials for preclinical and clinical development, as well as for commercial manufacture of any future approved products. The facilities used by third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements or similar applicable foreign requirements for manufacture of drug products. If these third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including requirements related to the manufacturing of high potency compounds, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. These third-party manufacturers may be delayed in their manufacture or shipment of our product candidates due to public health outbreaks, heightened geopolitical conflict, increases in inflation and interest rates, or supply chain disruptions. For example, deterioration in the relationship between the United States and the PRC may impact international trade, government spending, regional stability and macroeconomic conditions. The impact of these potential developments, including any resulting sanctions, export controls or other restrictive actions that may be imposed against governmental or other entities in, for example, the PRC, may contribute to disruption of our PRC-based third-party suppliers and instability and volatility in the global markets, which in turn could adversely impact our operations and weaken our financial results. Additionally, our ability to audit these third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements or similar foreign requirements (where applicable) and our specifications may be hindered or delayed due to a public health outbreak or geopolitical conditions. In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find 59 alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products. In addition, we currently and may in the future rely on foreign CMOs, CROs and other foreign organizations and companies that conduct manufacturing or research for us. Such foreign entities may be subject to U.S. legislation, sanctions, trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements which could increase the cost or reduce the supply of material available to us, delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. For example, on December 18, 2025, President Trump signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2026 (NDAA), which includes § 851 often referred to as “the BIOSECURE Act.” Under the BIOSECURE Act, U.S. government agencies cannot (1) buy or obtain biotechnology equipment or services provided by a “biotechnology company of concern” (BCC); (2) enter into, extend, or renew a contract with any entity using biotechnology equipment or services provided by a BCC; or (3) expend loan or grant funds for biotechnology equipment or services provided by a BCC, whether directly or through a loan or grant recipient. Congress has interpreted a BCC as an entity that is under the control of a foreign adversary and that poses a risk to national security based on its research or multiomic data collection (e.g., collection of genomic information). The BIOSECURE Act does not bar a U.S. company from all federal contracts or grants simply because it does business with a BCC. The restriction applies only when a federal contract or grant would procure covered biotechnology equipment or services—directly or indirectly—from a designated company. While the BIOSECURE Act has a grandfathering period of five years for existing contracts, and has carveouts for manufacture of drugs for supply under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, subject to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs’ discretion, the impact of the BIOSECURE Act on the biotechnology industry is uncertain. If the foreign CROs and CMOs we rely on become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, increased tariffs or other regulatory requirements by the U.S. government (including designation as a BCC under the BIOSECURE Act), or if the U.S. or Chinese government take retaliatory actions due to recent or increased tensions between the United States and China, it may have the potential to severely restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, or otherwise collaborate with, certain “biotechnology companies of concern” without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. In addition, we may be unable to establish or renew any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including: • failure of third-party manufacturers to comply with regulatory requirements and maintain quality assurance; • breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third-party; • failure to manufacture our product according to our specifications; • failure to manufacture our product according to our schedule or at all; • misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how; and • termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third-party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us, particularly if the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflict and macroeconomic concerns continue or worsen. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval, and any related remedial measures may be costly or time-consuming to implement. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for all required raw materials used in the manufacture of our product candidates. If our current third-party manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may be unable to replace them on a timely basis or at all. We rely on, and in the future may rely on, third-party databases and collaborations with third parties to inform patient selection and drug target identification for our existing product candidates and any future product candidates and for the supply of biomarker companion diagnostics . 60 We are using bioinformatics, including data analytics, biostatistics, and computational biology, to identify new target and biomarker opportunities. As part of this approach, we interrogate public and proprietary databases comprising human tumor genetic information and specific cancer-target dependency networks. We rely on these databases and data analytics for identifying or validating some of our biomarker-target relationships and access to these databases may not continue to be available publicly or through a proprietary subscription on acceptable terms. Many of our precision medicine targeted therapeutic product candidates also rely on the availability and use of commercially available tumor diagnostics panels or data on the prevalence of our target patient population to inform the patient selection and drug target identification for our product candidates. In cases where such biomarker diagnostic is not already commercially available, we expect to establish strategic collaborations for the clinical supply and development of companion diagnostics. If these diagnostics are not able to be developed, or if commercial tumor profiling panels are not able to be updated to include additional tumor-associated genes, or if clinical oncologists do not incorporate molecular or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice, we may not be successful in developing our existing product candidates or any future product candidates. We depend on third-party suppliers for key materials required for the production of our product candidates, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us with adequate materials could harm our business. We rely on third-party suppliers for certain materials, such as starting reagents, required for the production of our product candidates and/or for certain materials and assays, such as diagnostics, for clinical and commercial use of our product candidates. Our dependence on these third-party suppliers and the challenges we may face in obtaining adequate supplies of materials involve several risks, including limited control over pricing, availability, quality and delivery schedules. As a small company, our negotiation leverage is limited and we are likely to get lower priority than our competitors that are larger than we are. We cannot be certain that our suppliers will continue to provide us with the quantities of these raw materials that we require or satisfy our anticipated specifications and quality requirements. Any supply interruption in limited or sole sourced raw materials could materially harm our ability to manufacture our product candidates until a new source of supply, if any, could be identified and qualified. We may be unable to find a sufficient alternative supply channel in a reasonable time or on commercially reasonable terms. Any performance failure on the part of our suppliers could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, including limiting supplies necessary for clinical trials and regulatory approvals, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, the facilities to manufacture our product candidates must be the subject of a satisfactory inspection before the FDA or other regulatory authorities approve an NDA or grant a marketing authorization for the product candidate manufactured at that facility. We will depend on these third-party manufacturing partners for compliance with the FDA’s requirements for the manufacture of our finished products. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ GMP requirements, our product candidates will not be approved or, if already approved, may be subject to recalls. Furthermore, certain of the third-party suppliers on which we rely are based in the PRC. The evolving trade dispute between the PRC and the United States has resulted in the imposition of significant tariffs on certain imports from the PRC. Any deterioration of the relationship between the United States and the PRC, or the imposition of more stringent export controls or tariffs applicable to our suppliers in the PRC, could adversely affect our ability to obtain the raw materials required for the manufacture of our product candidates, and therefore adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including: • the possibility of a breach of the manufacturing agreements by the third parties because of factors beyond our control; • the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreements by the third parties before we are able to arrange for a qualified replacement third-party manufacturer; and • the possibility that we may not be able to secure a manufacturer or manufacturing capacity in a timely manner and on satisfactory terms in order to meet our manufacturing needs. Any of these factors could cause the delay of approval or commercialization of any products, cause us to incur higher costs or prevent us from commercializing any products successfully. Furthermore, if any of our product candidates are approved and contract manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of finished product on a timely basis and at 61 commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative source of supply for our product candidates and to have any such new source approved by the FDA or any other relevant regulatory authority. If we fail to comply with our obligations under any of our in-license agreements, we could lose license rights that are important to our business. Our current in-license agreements or any future in-license agreements provide or may provide that we must use reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate using the licensed compound. The agreements further impose or may impose an obligation to make various milestone payments and royalty payments, as well as other obligations on us. If we materially breach the terms of any in-license agreement and fail to cure such breach within the period allowed, then the licensor may terminate the license agreement. In addition, the licensor has or may have the right to terminate on our insolvency. If the agreement is terminated, then we will not be able to further develop or commercialize the licensed compound or any future related product candidates. Furthermore, any dispute with the licensor may result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of the licensed compound or any future related product candidates, and may result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources away from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our existing collaboration arrangements and any collaboration arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates or diagnostics associated with such product candidates. In the future, we may seek to enter into additional collaboration arrangements for the development or commercialization of certain of our product candidates or diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates. To the extent that we decide to enter into additional collaboration agreements in the future, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and challenging to manage. We may not be successful in our efforts to prudently manage our existing collaborations or to enter new ones should we chose to do so. The terms of new collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that: • collaborators may have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to collaborations; • collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in their strategic focus due to their acquisition of competitive products or their internal development of competitive products, availability of funding or other external factors, such as a business combination that diverts resources or creates competing priorities; • collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial, abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing; • collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates; • a collaborator with marketing, manufacturing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to or otherwise not perform satisfactorily in carrying out these activities; • we could grant exclusive rights to our collaborators that would prevent us from collaborating with others; • collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential liability; 62 • disputes may arise between us and a collaborator that cause the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our current or future product candidates or that results in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources; • collaborations may be terminated, which may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable current or future product candidates; • collaborators may own or co-own intellectual property covering products that result from our collaboration with them, and in such cases, we would not have the exclusive right to develop or commercialize such intellectual property; • disputes may arise with respect to the ownership or inventorship of any intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaborations; and • a collaborator’s sales and marketing activities or other operations may not be in compliance with applicable laws resulting in civil or criminal proceedings. Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates Even if we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions on marketing or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if any of them are approved. If one of our product candidates is approved, it will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities may impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly and time-consuming post-approval studies, post-market surveillance or clinical trials to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Similar requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs or similar foreign requirements and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things: • suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls; • restrictions on product distribution or use, or requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or additional clinical trials; • suspension of any of our ongoing clinical trials; • fines, restitutions, disgorgement of profits or revenues, warning letters, untitled letters or holds on clinical trials; • refusal by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of approvals; • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of our product candidates; and • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. 63 The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any future approved product and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. In addition, if any of our product candidates is approved, our product labeling, advertising and promotion will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. Similar requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions. If we receive marketing approval for a product, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. The incidence and prevalence of our target patient populations are estimations. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be harmed. We rely on various sources, including published literature and public or proprietary databases, to ascertain an estimate of the number of patients having particular genetic alterations, such as mutations, deletions or fusions, across various tissue-type specific indications. The determinable prevalence may vary depending on the source and quality of the underlying data and in some cases, insufficient data or poorly curated data may impact our ability to accurately estimate the prevalence of our target patient populations for each indication and in the aggregate across multiple indications both in the clinical trial setting, as well as in the commercial setting, if our product is approved. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be harmed. In addition, upon treatment with our product candidates, patients may have or develop resistance to our product candidates, reducing the addressable patient population and the duration of treatment. Even if our product candidates or any future product candidate obtains regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success. Even if our product candidates or any future product candidate receives FDA or other regulatory approvals, the commercial success of any product will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications. For a variety of reasons, including among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, reimbursement by insurers, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of any products, if approved, commercial success will depend on a number of factors, including: • the clinical indications for which the product is approved and patient demand for approved products that treat those indications; • the safety and efficacy of our product as compared to other available therapies; • the availability of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates or any other future product candidates; • the time required for manufacture and release of our products; • the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from managed care plans, private insurers, government payors (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and other third-party payors for any of our products that may be approved; • acceptance by physicians, operators of hospitals and clinics and patients of the product as a safe and effective treatment; 64 • physician and patient willingness to adopt a new therapy over other available therapies for a particular indication; • proper training and administration of our product candidates by physicians and medical staff; • patient satisfaction with the results and administration of our product candidates and overall treatment experience, including, for example, the convenience of any dosing regimen; • the cost of treatment with our product candidates in relation to alternative treatments and reimbursement levels, if any, and willingness to pay for the product, if approved, on the part of insurance companies and other third-party payors, physicians and patients; • the prevalence and severity of side effects; • limitations or warnings contained in the FDA-approved labeling for our products or similar foreign requirements; • the willingness of physicians, operators of hospitals and clinics and patients to utilize or adopt our products as a solution; • any FDA requirement for a REMS or similar foreign risk mitigation measures; • the effectiveness of our sales, marketing and distribution efforts; • adverse publicity about our products or favorable publicity about competitive products; and • potential product liability claims. We cannot assure you that our current or future product candidates, if approved, will achieve broad market acceptance among physicians and patients. Any failure by our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The successful commercialization of any products will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers, managed care plans and other third-party payors provide coverage, adequate reimbursement levels and implement pricing policies favorable for any products. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for products, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue. The availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, managed care plans and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford medical services and pharmaceutical products such as our product candidates that receive FDA approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors for our products will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. 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 FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product that we may develop. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any of our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Assuming there is coverage for our products, if any, by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely. 65 Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our products, pricing of other third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our products. These third-party payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of our products, if approved, or establish prices for our products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment. If reimbursement is not available, is decreased or eliminated in the future, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our products. Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our products, if any. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our products. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products, and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of any products. We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the planned clinical trials of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranty. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of any products. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • decreased demand for any products; • injury to our reputation; • withdrawal of clinical trial participants; • costs to defend the related litigation; • a diversion of management’s time and our resources; • substantial monetary awards to clinical trial participants or patients; • regulatory investigations, product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions; • loss of revenue; and • the inability to commercialize any products. Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of any products. Although we have obtained and intend to maintain product liability insurance covering our clinical trials, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our 66 insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing any of our product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of such product candidate; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Risks Related to Intellectual Property Our success depends on our ability to obtain and maintain protection for our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies and to avoid infringing the rights of others. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and proprietary technologies, as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We and our licensors have applied, and we intend to continue applying, for patents covering important aspects of our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as we deem appropriate. However, the patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our current or future product candidates and proprietary technologies in a timely fashion, at a reasonable cost, in all jurisdictions, or at all. If we cannot adequately obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our technologies or the goodwill we have acquired in the marketplace and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have and our ability to compete, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability and/or cause us to incur significant expenses. Failure to obtain, maintain and/or enforce intellectual property rights necessary to our business and failure to protect, monitor and control the use of our intellectual property rights could negatively impact our ability to compete and cause us to incur significant expenses. The intellectual property laws and other statutory and contractual arrangements in the United States and other jurisdictions we depend upon may not provide sufficient protection in the future to prevent the infringement, use, violation or misappropriation of our patents, trademarks, data, technology and other intellectual property rights and products by others, and may not provide an adequate remedy if our intellectual property rights are infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated by others. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the inventions claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the invention as claimed. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our actual or potential future collaborators or licensors will be successful in protecting our product candidates and proprietary technologies by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following: • the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction; • patent applications may not result in any patents being issued; • our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than we do and many of whom have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek or may have already obtained or licensed patents that will limit, interfere with or eliminate our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates; • other parties may have designed or may design around our claims or developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our platform, may have filed or may file patent applications and may have received or may receive patents that overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming the same methods or devices or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position; • any successful opposition to any patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the practice of our technologies or the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop; • because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates and proprietary technologies; 67 • an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications for any application with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013; • there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful, as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and • countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than those upheld by U.S. courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop and market competing product candidates. We rely in part on our portfolio of issued and pending patent applications in the United States and other countries to protect our intellectual property and competitive position. The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. It is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. If we fail to timely file for patent protection in any jurisdiction, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. And although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, should we become a licensee of a third-party’s patents or patent applications, depending on the terms of any future in-licenses to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology in-licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted, maintained and/or enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and it may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products or services. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurances about which of our patent applications will issue, the breadth of any resulting patent, whether any of the issued patents will be found to be infringed, invalid or unenforceable or will be threatened or challenged by third parties, that any of our issued patents have, or that any of our currently pending or future patent applications that mature into issued patents will include, claims with a scope sufficient to protect our products and services. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. We cannot offer any assurances that the breadth of our granted patents will be sufficient to stop a competitor from developing, manufacturing and commercializing a product or technologies in a non-infringing manner that would be competitive with one or more of our products or technologies, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Further, our patents or the patent rights that we license from others, may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action or similar proceedings in court or before patent offices in the United States or foreign jurisdictions for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such patents. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, all of which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. In addition, defending such challenges in such proceedings may be costly. Further, there can be no assurance that we will have adequate resources to enforce our patents. Thus, any patents that we may own may not provide the anticipated level of, or any, protection against competitors. Furthermore, an adverse decision may result in a third-party receiving a patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our products or technologies. The degree of future protection for our patent rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that: • any of our patents, or any of our pending patent applications, if issued, or those of our licensors, will include claims having a scope sufficient to protect our product candidates; • any of our pending patent applications will issue as patents; 68 • any of the patents we own or license will be found to ultimately be valid and enforceable if subject to challenge; • we were the first to make the inventions covered by each of our patents and pending applications; • we were the first to file patent applications for these inventions; • we will be able to successfully manufacture and commercialize our products on a substantial scale, if approved, before relevant patents we may have expire; • any patents issued to us or our licensors will provide a basis for an exclusive market for any commercially viable products we may develop or will provide us with any competitive advantages; • we will develop or in-license additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; • the patents of others will not have an adverse effect on our business; • others will not develop, manufacture and/or commercialize similar or alternative products or technologies that do not infringe our patents; • our competitors do not conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have enforceable patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets; and • our commercial activities or products will not infringe upon the patents of others. Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Such proceedings could also provoke third parties to assert claims against us, including that some or all of the claims in one or more of our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or service. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. If we initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, or litigate against third-party claims, such proceedings would be expensive and would divert the attention of our management and technical personnel. Where we obtain licenses from or collaborate with third parties, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties, or such activities, if controlled by us, may require the input of such third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors and collaborators to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license, or expiration of licensed patents or patent applications, could have a material adverse impact on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Some of our patents and patent applications may in the future be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products, services and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, the research resulting in certain of our owned and in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the government may have certain rights, or march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. 69 Further, we rely on a combination of contractual provisions, confidentiality procedures and patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property laws to protect the proprietary aspects of our products, brands, technologies, trade secrets, know-how and data. These legal measures afford only limited protection, and competitors or others may gain access to or use our intellectual property rights and proprietary information. Our success will depend, in part, on preserving our trade secrets, maintaining the security of our data and know-how and obtaining, maintaining and enforcing other intellectual property rights. We may not be able to obtain, maintain and/or enforce our intellectual property or other proprietary rights necessary to our business or in a form that provides us with a competitive advantage. If we fail to obtain sufficient patent or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates or proprietary technologies or if we lose any patent or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates or proprietary technologies, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected. If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation for patents covering our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed, and in any case, the terms of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our product candidates and business. Patents have a limited term. In most countries, including the United States, the expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective non-provisional filing date. However, depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of any of our current or future product candidates, one or more of any U.S. patents we may be issued or have licensed may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA-approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. 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 restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be harmed, possibly materially. If there are delays in obtaining regulatory approvals or other additional delays, the period of time during which we can market our product candidates under patent protection could be further reduced. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. Once the patent term has expired, we may be open to competition from similar or generic products. The launch of a generic version of one of our products in particular would be likely to result in an immediate and substantial reduction in the demand for that product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process to maintain patent applications and issued patents. In addition, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on issued patents often must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent and/or applications and any patent rights we may obtain in the future. While an unintentional lapse of a patent or patent application can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance with these requirements can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. There could also be delays at the USPTO caused by staffing 70 cuts and other U.S. government actions as a result of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency or other executive actions to reduce the size of the U.S. government. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or services, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products or services that are the same as or similar to our products or services, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject in part to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, and the patent protection, prosecution and enforcement for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our licensors. We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain intellectual property rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our proprietary technology, including technology related to our product candidates. For example, we rely on our option and license agreement with CRT for certain rights to IDE161, our exclusive license agreement with Hengrui for the rights to IDE849, and our option and license agreement with Biocytogen for certain rights to IDE034. These licenses, and other licenses we have entered into and may enter into in the future, may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property rights and proprietary technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize technology and product candidates in the future. Licenses to additional third-party proprietary technology or intellectual property rights that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our proprietary technology or product candidates or to develop or license replacement technology, which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may not be able to develop and commercialize technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Third-party patents may exist which might be enforced against our current or future product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties. In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or by paying all applicable prosecution and maintenance fees related to intellectual property registrations for any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that our licensors have drafted or prosecuted the patents and patent applications licensed to us in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. This could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. Our current licenses impose, and our future licenses likely will impose, various royalty payments, milestones, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any of these obligations, we may be subject to liability, including the payment of damages, and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Termination by the licensor would cause us to lose valuable rights, and could prevent us from developing and commercializing our product candidates and proprietary technologies. Furthermore, if any current or future licenses terminate, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may gain the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products similar or identical to our planned products. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property rights that are subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. 71 We may fail to comply with any of our obligations under existing or future agreements pursuant to which we license or have otherwise acquired intellectual property rights or technology, which could result in the loss of rights or technology that are material to our business. We are party to various agreements that we depend on to operate our business, including intellectual property rights relating to products in-licensed from third parties, such as, for example, our agreement with Novartis for darovasertib. Our rights to use currently licensed intellectual property, or intellectual property to be licensed in the future, are or will be subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of these agreements. These agreements are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations which could lead to disputes, including but not limited to those regarding: • the scope of rights granted under the license agreement; • the extent to which our proprietary technology and product candidates infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement; • the sublicensing of patent and other rights; • diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; • the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the creation or use of intellectual property by us or our counterparties, alone or jointly; • the scope and duration of our payment obligations; • the priority of invention of patented technology; • rights upon termination of such agreement; and • the scope and duration of exclusivity obligations of each party to the agreement. The resolution of any contractual interpretation dispute that may arise, if unfavorable to us, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Such resolution could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement or decrease the third-party’s financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement. Furthermore, if disputes over intellectual property rights that we have licensed or acquired from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current license agreements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license agreements, these agreements may be terminated or the scope of our rights under them may be reduced and we might be unable to develop, manufacture or market any product that is licensed under these agreements. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we may license as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described herein. If we or any of our current or future licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize product candidates could suffer. We may become subject to third-party claims alleging infringement, misappropriation or violation of such third-party’s patents or other intellectual property rights and/or third-party claims seeking to invalidate our patents, which could require us to spend significant time and money and, if successfully asserted against us, could delay or prevent us from developing, manufacturing and selling our products. Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our products and product candidates without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may nonetheless be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe their intellectual property rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts. We cannot assure you that our operations do not, or will not in the future, be found to infringe existing or future patents. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates or impair our competitive position. As the biotechnology industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third 72 parties. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, reexaminations, inter partes review proceedings and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and/or corresponding foreign patent offices, and companies in the industry have used these proceedings to gain a competitive advantage. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. For example, we are aware of an international patent application published as PCT WO 2017/096165 A1. If a patent issues from such patent application with claims similar to those published, our ability to commercialize a product candidate for our MAT2A program may be adversely affected if we do not obtain a license under such patent. Furthermore, 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 and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our analysis of these issues, including interpreting the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application, determining applicability of such claims to our proprietary technologies or product candidates, predicting whether a third-party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope, and determining the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. Additionally, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. applications that will not be filed outside the United States can remain confidential until patents issue. In addition, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can be revived. Furthermore, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. These applications may later result in issued patents, or the reviv