Immix Biopharma, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Overview We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing a novel class of Tissue-Specific Therapeutics (“TSTx”) TM in oncology and inflammation. Our lead asset, IMX-110, is currently in Phase 1b/2a clinical trials for solid tumors in the United States and Australia. IMX-110 is a negatively-charged TSTx that simultaneously disables resistance pathways with a poly-kinase inhibitor (which inhibits multiple kinases simultaneously) and induces tumor cell death with an apoptosis inducer (which activates apoptosis, a non-inflammatory programmed cell death pathway), leveraging our TME Normalization TM Technology, delivered deep into the tumor micro-environment (“TME”). Our proprietary System Multi-Action RegulaTors SMAR x T Tissue-Specific TM Platform produces drugs that accumulate at intended therapeutic sites at 3-5 times the rate of conventional medicines. Our TME Normalization™ Technology allows our drug candidates to circulate in the bloodstream, exit through tumor blood vessels and simultaneously attack all components of the TME. To date, we have not generated any revenues. Since inception, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to developing product and technology rights, conducting research and development, organizing and staffing our Company, business planning and raising capital. Pipeline Our SMAR x T Tissue-Specific TM Platform has produced 3 drug candidates which we believe derisks the clinical development of each subsequent candidate due to shared design elements across tolerability, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, regulatory understanding, and multi-target therapeutic approach, the first of which is IMX-110, currently in Phase 1b/2a oncology clinical trials. Figure 3: ImmixBio SMAR x T Tissue-Specific TM Platform – Pipeline 7 Our Lead Product Candidate IMX-110, currently in Phase 1b/2a clinical trials, is a Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM , a technology that we are developing initially for soft tissue sarcoma (“STS”). Tumor growth is sustained by hypoxia (low oxygen concentration) and acidosis (an excessively acidic condition) which produce recurring waves of activation of multiple kinases that upregulate NF-κB, STAT3 and other key transcriptional factors which cause recurrent inflammation. This inflammatory environment activates the TME to provide metabolic and structural support to the tumor and to recruit Treg T-cells (immune cells suppressing immune response) to suppress anti-tumor immune response. IMX-110’s poly-kinase inhibitor polyphenol curcuminoid complex (“PCC”) halts this fundamental tumor-sustaining inflammation by blocking multiple kinases and interfering with NF-κB and STAT3 activation, interrupting the positive feedback loop underlying the inflammatory cycle. With tumor-sustaining inflammation halted, IMX-110’s apoptosis inducer (Polyethylene glycol – phosphatidylethanolamine (“PEG-PE”)-doxorubicin complex) is then able to induce tumor cell death where conventional therapies have been hampered by resistance caused by NF-κB and STAT3 activation. As of March 2022, we have treated 14 patients in our ongoing Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the United States and Australia. 100% of these patients received between 3 and 13 lines of therapy prior to IMX-110. Zero drug-related serious adverse events and zero dose interruptions due to toxicity have been observed in our 1b/2a clinical trial to-date. In our trial, we observed radiological progression-free-survival of 6 months in 50% of our STS patients, with a 4-month median progression free survival (“mPFS”) across all STS patients. mPFS is the time that patients live without their cancer progressing. The trial includes patients with leiomyosarcoma, carcinosarcoma, poorly differentiated soft tissue sarcoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, breast cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer. In August 2021, we entered into a Clinical Collaboration and Supply Agreement with BeiGene Ltd. (“BeiGene”) for a combination Phase 1b clinical trial in solid tumors of IMX-110 and anti-PD-1 Tislelizumab (the subject of a collaboration and license agreement among BeiGene and Novartis). In genetic mouse models of pancreatic cancer, IMX-110 has demonstrated an immunomodulation effect, turning “cold” tumors “hot,” and, in combination with murine anti-PD-1, IMX-110 produced extended survival versus multi-drug combinations. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the potential for TSTx to be an integral component of combination therapies for a wide range of advanced solid tumors. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we and BeiGene shall form a committee made up of an equal number of individuals, but not more than two representatives of each of our Company and BeiGene, which shall, among other things, coordinate activities with respect to the trial; provided, however, we shall be entitled to receive, review or approve any budgets or other costs relating to the trial. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we shall be responsible for all costs associated with the manufacturing and supply of IMX-110 for the trial as well as all costs associated with conducting the trial and BeiGene shall be responsible for costs associated with supplying Tislelizumab for the trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Tislelizumab supplied by BeiGene is lost, damaged or destroyed or becomes unable to comply with applicable specifications while under our control, BeiGene shall not be required to replace such Tislelizumab and in the event BeiGene replaces such Tislelizumab, it may charge us a reasonable replacement cost. The agreement shall continue until the earlier of (i) the one year anniversary of the date upon which we provide BeiGene with the trial’s final clinical study report and (ii) the date of termination of the trial. In addition, either party may terminate the agreement (i) upon 30 days prior written notice to the other party if, in the case of our Company, we cease the development of IMX-110 or, in the case of BeiGene, it ceases the development, marketing and sale of Tislelizumab, (ii) upon written notice to the other party if there have been one or more serious adverse events indicating a patient safety issue with continuing the trial, (iii) upon written notice to the other party if a regulatory authority withdraws approval of IMX-110 or Tislelizumab, as applicable, and/or the trial, (iv) upon 60 days notice to the other party with or without reason, (v) immediately upon written notice to the other party if such other party consummates a Change of Control Transaction (as defined in the agreement) and/or (vi) upon written notice to the other party in the event such other party is in material breach of the agreement and has not cured such breach within 60 days after receipt of notice from the non-breaching party. As of the date hereof, we have not paid any amounts to BeiGene. In September 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) to IMX-110 for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. If a product that has ODD subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity), which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for 7 years (except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity). 8 Our Other Product Candidates IMX-111 is a Tissue-Specific Biologic TM built on our TME Normalization TM Technology with proprietary GLUT1 antibody biomarker targeting coupled with our poly-kinase inhibitor / apoptosis inducer. IMX-111 takes advantage of the fact that GLUT1 is an essential cancer biomarker that is overexpressed on 92% of colorectal cancer cells and other tumor types. Furthermore, the degree of its overexpression correlates with more advanced stages of tumor progression. Building on the well-tolerated profile of our lead candidate from our ongoing clinical trial, we believe IMX-111 is the first cancer therapeutic to be developed that takes advantage of GLUT1 overexpression in cancer. IMX-120 is a Tissue-Specific Biologic TM built on our Immune Normalization Technology TM for inflammatory bowel disease with proprietary GLUT1 antibody biomarker targeting coupled with polyphenol poly-kinase inhibitors. IMX-120 takes advantage of the fact that overexpression and activation of GLUT1 on overactive immune cells has been shown to be widely present in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (“IBD”). Similar to tumor growth, the inflammatory processes active in IBD are caused by recurring waves of activation of multiple kinases that upregulate NF-κB, STAT3 and other key transcriptional factors. IMX-120’s polyphenol poly-kinase inhibitors block upstream kinase signal transduction systems that activate NF-κB and STAT3. GLUT1 presents an ideal targeting moiety (component of a drug) for these overactive immune cells, allowing for tissue-specific delivery of IMX-120. Other than IMX-110, the FDA has not given any indication as to whether any of our other product candidates will receive ODD. Figure 4: ImmixBio SMAR x T Tissue-Specific TM Platform – Summary Rendering Our Platform and Technologies Our SMAR x T Tissue-Specific Platform consists of 3 pillars: first, System-Tissue Biology Model Development, which allows us to develop robust mechanisms of action in complex pathologies; second, Purpose-Built Physical Biochemistry Engine, which allows us to generate actionable drug candidates; and third, Predictive Valuation Framework, which allows us to conduct highly predictive IND-enabling activities. 9 Figure 5: SMARxT Tissue-Specific TM Platform Overview Specifically, the 3 pillars of our platform are: 1) System-Tissue Biology Model Development : Interplay of cellular elements define and drive disease states. Based on transcriptional and epigenetic factors operating in key cell types, we have built a proprietary model of network motifs driving human pathologies such as cancer and auto-immune/inflammatory diseases. We believe this model represents the most complete view of biologic interrelationships on an organismal and tissue level. We apply this model in the early stages of our drug development to overcome systemic factors that have prevented traditional “targeted” therapies’ effectiveness in complex pathologies such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease. 2) Purpose-Built Physical Biochemistry Engine : Traditional drug development focuses on “one drug, one target” approach. In contrast, our proprietary physical biochemistry engine is designed to incorporate wide-ranging elements into our drug design, encompassing a diverse target profile, allowing our drugs to operate simultaneously in time and space to jointly combat disease at the tissue and organismal level. 3) Predictive Validation Framework : Using our unique relationships and our internal expertise, we have developed a proprietary framework of high-efficiency, rapid development in vitro and in vivo animal models that have high relatability to human disease, minimizing the traditional poor predictive value of animal models. The application of the SMAR x T Tissue-Specific Platform in oncology is TME Normalization TM Technology, and in inflammation is Immune Normalization TM Technology. 10 Figure 6: TME Normalization TM Technology The TME is made up of a tightly packed mass of: 1) cancer associated fibroblasts (“CAFs”), 2) tumor-associated macrophages/immune cells (“TAMs”), and 3) cancer itself. The TME’s unique biophysical properties include regions of varying degrees of hypoxia, acidosis and an immunosuppressive milieu. As cancer cells outgrow their blood supply, the resulting hypoxia and acidosis shift their metabolism towards glycolysis, lactate and lipids. This, in turn, shapes the responses of proximal fibroblasts and resident immune cells. Fibroblasts begin to secrete lactate that is taken up by nearby cancer cells and consumed as fuel. Lactate in the TME reprograms the macrophages toward the M2 “tolerant” pro-inflammatory phenotype that drives immunosuppression. At the same time, the TME hypoxia produces increased levels of reactive oxygen species that enhance tumorigenicity (tendency to form tumors) and immunosuppressive functions of Treg T-cells, as well as resistance to immune drugs such as PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Our TME Normalization TM Technology reverses the hypoxia- and acidosis-activated genetic programs in every cellular component of the TME, “normalizing” the TME, and reactivating apoptosis cell death pathways. This technology offers an attractive opportunity to reshape the pathological niche that is the TME and overcome the critical factors that have hampered available treatments to date. 11 Figure 7: Representation of the TME composed of CAFs, TAMs, and cancer cells Our TME Normalization TM Technology causes tumor apoptosis, a non-inflammatory tumor-cell death (instead of necroptosis, which results in repeat reignition of the inflammatory cascade leading to tumor progression). Thus, when the inflammatory cascade is inhibited, tumor resistance can be suppressed, enabling tumor cell apoptosis by ImmixBio therapies. We believe that our TME Normalization TM Technology is a promising direction of research that may enable a new generation of high-therapeutic index drugs (drugs that have high relative safety as defined by the ratio of toxic to effective dose), unlocking additional therapeutic benefit without adding toxicity. IMX-110 - Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology IMX-110 Market Opportunity The first potential indication we intend to pursue for IMX-110 is STS. STSs are cancers that arise from muscle, fat, nerves, fibrous tissues, blood vessels or deep skin tissues. Globally, there are roughly 116,000 new cases of soft tissue sarcomas each year, of which 21,500 are in the European Union and 40,500 are in China. According to American Cancer Society, there were roughly 13,000 new cases of soft tissue sarcomas in the United States during 2020. Approximately 160,000 people live with soft tissue cancers in the United States. The five-year survival rate for all stages of STS is 65.0% in the United States, but this falls to 16.0% for patients with late-stage metastatic disease. The global soft tissue sarcoma market is estimated to reach approximately $6.5 billion by 2030 from the estimated $2.9 billion in 2019. Drugs used to treat STS include conventional doxorubicin, eribulin (marketed as Halaven®, by Eisai Co, Ltd), pazopanib (marketed as Votrient®, by Novartis), and trabectedin (marketed as Yondelis®, by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson). $898 million is the total publicly disclosed combined annual sales of eribulin (Halaven®), pazopanib (Votrient®), and trabectedin (Yondelis®) according to the most recent available annual reports. Objective response rates are increasingly considered as poor surrogates of clinical activity in STS. Therefore, lack of progression, or progression free survival (“PFS”), is used as the primary measure of treatment success in STS. 12 Conventional doxorubicin, in three separate studies as a first-line therapy, produced a mPFS (meaning the time patients live without their cancer progressing) in STS patients of 2.5 months, 4.6 months, and 2.7 months according to Lorigan et al., 2007, Judson et al., 2014 and Chawla et al., 2015. Eribulin (Halaven®), was trialed in a study in which 50% of patients received three or more lines of previous chemotherapy prior to eribulin. Eribulin produced a mPFS in STS patients of 2.6 months according to Schöffski et al., 2016. Pazopanib (Votrient®), was trialed in a study in which 21% of patients received three or more lines of treatment prior to pazopanib. Pazopanib produced a mPFS in STS patients of 4.6 months according to van der Graaf et al., 2012. Trabectedin (Yondelis®) was trialed in a study in which 12% of patients received three or more lines of chemotherapy prior to trabectedin. Trabectedin produced a mPFS in STS patients of 4.2 months according to Demetri et al., 2016. IMX-110 Clinical Data As of March 2022, we have treated 14 patients in our ongoing Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the United States and Australia, of which 8 patients completed a tumor measurement after the enrollment measurement. Of those 8 patients, a range of late-stage STSs were represented, including: leiomyosarcoma, cholangiocarcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and poorly differentiated sarcoma. 4 months was the mPFS observed in STS patients treated with IMX-110 in the United States in our ongoing Phase 1b/2a clinical trial. 100% of these patients received between 3 and 13 lines of therapy prior to IMX-110. Zero drug-related serious adverse events and zero dose interruptions due to toxicity have been observed in our 1b/2a clinical trial to-date. Figure 8: IMX-110 Soft Tissue Sarcoma median Progression Free Survival and level of pre-treatment 13 In our ongoing IMX-110 clinical trial: - 100% of STS patients had controlled disease at 2 months. - 75% of STS patients experienced tumor shrinkage. The range of the best percentage change from baseline in size of target lesions was between -10% and -18%. - A 59 year old male STS patient experienced 6 month PFS, despite having 13 prior lines of therapy and the largest tumor burden at the time of enrollment (312mm diameter across 5 target lesions). - A 77 year old male STS patient with 8 lines of prior therapy experienced 4 month PFS. - A 27 year old female STS patient with 3 lines of prior therapy experienced 4 month clinical PFS and 6 month radiological PFS. Figure 9: IMX-110 Phase 1b/2a Clinical Trial Interim Patient Data: 75% of Heavily Pretreated Soft Tissue Sarcoma Patients Experienced Tumor Shrinkage Soft Tissue Sarcoma % Change in Target Lesion Size from Baseline (Left) Soft Tissue Sarcoma Best % Change from Baseline in Size of Target Lesions (Center) Non-Sarcoma Cancers % Change in Target Lesion Size from Baseline (Right) (Source: Immix Biopharma, Inc. ImmixBio has evaluable data for 8 patients as of March 2022 (out of n=14, the remaining 6 did not complete any tumor measurements after enrollment scan). All 8 evaluable patients have discontinued treatment. “Heavily Pretreated” refers to 3-13 lines of therapy. Dose expressed in mg/m 2 . Our employees were involved in the design of this study and the results are unpublished.) In addition to IMX-110 STS data, a colorectal cancer patient originally considered for hospice was subsequently treated with IMX-110 for 10 months with zero serious drug-related adverse events. This patient experienced 4 month PFS on half of what we expect to be IMX-110’s recommended Phase 2 therapeutic dose. 14 IMX-110 Development Strategy Figure 10: IMX-110: Direct Path To 1 st Line Therapy In Soft Tissue Sarcoma – Clinical Trial Plan We plan to treat an additional 30 STS patients in our Phase 2a trial with IMX-110 as a first-line therapy. We expect our Phase 2a trial to require around 24 months after the first patient is dosed in 2022. The basis for IMX-110 as a first-line therapy in STS is threefold: - encouraging clinical trial mPFS (4 month mPFS) data and tolerability data in our IMX-110 Phase 1b dose escalation trial; - we have identified precedent FDA clinical trial design for a first-line treatment; and - interest from leading STS PIs. Subsequently, we plan to initiate an 80 patient Phase 2b/3 clinical trial. 15 IMX-110 Composition and Mechanism of Action Figure 11: IMX-110 Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology for soft tissue sarcoma IMX-110 is a negatively-charged Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM built on our TME Normalization TM Technology encapsulating a synergistic 5:1 ratio of poly-kinase inhibitor (PCC) and apoptosis inducer (PEG-PE doxorubicin complex) delivered deep into the TME. IMX-110 is the first clinical-stage drug built on our TME Normalization TM Technology. Figure 12: IMX-110 – the first oncology micelle to achieve “small molecule penetration” (Intravital multiphoton imaging of intravenous injection into a mouse bearing an Mu89 melanoma in a dorsal skinfold chamber with a mixture of nanoparticles with diameters of 12 nm, 60 nm, and 125 nm. Adapted from Popovic, et al., 2010. We did not fund or sponsor this study, and we were not involved in this study or its publication.) IMX-110 is 14-16 nanometers in diameter, and is about the size of an Immunoglobulin G (“IgG”) antibody. Tumor blood vessels have perforations of several hundred nanometers in diameter. Once IMX-110 has exited the bloodstream toward the tumor, it must traverse the fibrous extracellular matrix, laid down by CAFs, that encases and scaffolds the tumor. IMX-110’s small size enables IMX-110 to exit perforated tumor blood vessels and penetrate the fibrous extracellular matrix. 16 Figure 13: Representation of IMX-110 in the bloodstream, prior to exiting perforated tumor blood vessels Figure 14: Representation of IMX-110 traversing the fibrous extracellular matrix toward the tumor 17 Figure 15: IMX-110 – negative charge facilitates selective tumor accumulation (Concentration in tumor after IV injection. C-labeled doxorubicin in micellular or free form was injected into the tail veins of C 26-bearing CDF 1 female mice (7 weeks old) at a volume of 0.1 ml/10g body weight. After defined time periods (15 min, 1, 4, 24, and 48 h), mice were anesthetized with diethylether and tumor samples were collected. Adapted from Yokoyama, et al., 1999. We did not fund or sponsor this study, and we were not involved in this study or its publication.) We believe IMX-110’s negative charge enables it to be electrostatically attracted to the tumor, and accumulate at tumor sites at a rate 4-9 times higher than the rate of existing standard of care chemotherapies such as conventional doxorubicin. Figure 16: IMX-110 – 12x tumor killing vs. conventional doxorubicin (See below paragraph for study description. Adapted from Sarisozen, et al., 2016) We observed that IMX-110 of statistically significantly increased apoptosis in 3D spheroid U87MG glioblastoma model as measured by increase in caspase 3/7 activity after 24 hours versus groups treated with: control group (empty micelles), 0.1 μM free doxorubicin (free DOX), 0.1 μM micellular doxorubicin (DOX micelles), 20 μM micellular curcumin (CUR micelles). The primary endpoint of the study was level of apoptosis as measured by increase in caspase 3/7 activity after 24 hours of treatment. 3D Spheroid U87MG glioblastoma cells were treated with 0.1 μM DOX and 20 μM CUR in micellar formulations for 24 h, followed by the Apo-ONE Homogeneous Caspase-3/7 Assay. Results were normalized against the control group and presented as mean ± SD. Our employees were involved in the design of this study and Ilya Rachman, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors, was a co-author of the results published in 2016. Results were generated in triplicate using 15 spheroids per treatment. IMX-110’s synergistic combination induces caspase 3/7 activity, a proxy for apoptosis/tumor cell killing, at a rate of 12 times higher than that of conventional doxorubicin, and at a rate 5 times higher than micellular doxorubicin, confirming IMX-110’s potent tumor cell killing activity. 18 Figure 17: Representation of IMX-110 effector molecules (orange and red) attacking multiple protein targets simultaneously Figure 18: IMX-110 Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Intracellular Mechanism of Action Specifically, IMX-110 induces potent tumor killing by blocking multiple tumor escape pathways targeted by FDA approved targeted agents and targeted agents in development. 19 Leveraging its multi-kinase inhibition capabilities, not only does IMX-110 block activation of NF-κB and STAT3, IMX-110 also simultaneously blocks activation of other well-known cancer-related proteins such as COX2, BCL2, BCL-xL, Survivin, c-myc, Notch, and Hes1. With these pathways shut down, IMX-110 is able to activate apoptosis through double-stranded DNA breaks caused by IMX-110’s apoptosis inducer (PEG-PE doxorubicin complex). Table 1: Select Drugs Targeting Same Targets That IMX-110 Targets Company Name Target 2021 status Venetoclax / Venclexta BCL2 Approved Navitoclax BCL2, BCL-xL Phase II ZN-d5 BCL2, BCL-xL IND Enabling Celebrex/celecoxib COX2 Off patent Brontictuzumab Notch1 Phase I IMX-110 Pre-clinical Data We have funded and sponsored pre-clinical experiments to characterize the activity profile of IMX-110 in a range of solid tumor models, including genetic KPC pancreatic mouse model, xenograft mouse models of various cancers, and in vitro with various cancer cell lines. We observed that IMX-110 statistically significantly inhibited tumor growth in a pre-clinical study that we funded and was conducted on an industry sponsored research basis in a HCT-116 colon cancer xenograft mouse model (which is poorly sensitive to doxorubicin). The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume, with the secondary endpoint being overall survival. Female nude (NU/NU) mice bearing 250mm 3 HCT-116 tumors were treated every 2 days starting at day 0 (7 total tail vein injections, arrows correspond to injection days) at a dose of 4 mg/kg CUR and 0.4 mg/kg DOX (six mice per dosing group). Survival was determined when the tumor reached 1000mm 3 . Our employees were involved in the design of this study and Ilya Rachman, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors, was a co-author of the results published in 2013. No adverse side effects of IMX-110 were observed as measured by lack of weight loss. 20 Figure 19: IMX-110 Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Statistically Significantly Inhibited Tumor Growth in HCT-116 Pre-clinical Xenograft Model (See above paragraph for study description. Adapted from Abouzeid et al., 2013) In this pre-clinical study of IMX-110 in the HCT-116 colorectal cancer xenograft mouse model, at day 24, 80% of mice treated with 1 cycle of low-dose IMX-110 were alive while all control animals were dead. We observed that IMX-110 monotherapy statistically significantly inhibited tumor growth in a pre-clinical study that we funded and was conducted in a genetic pancreatic cancer (KPC) mouse model. The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume and weight. Transgenic mice (Pdx1-Cre) were treated every day starting at day 0 (5 total tail vein injections, arrows correspond to injection days) at a dose of 6 mg/kg CUR and 1.4 mg/kg DOX (at least six mice per dosing group). Survival was determined when the tumor reached 1500mm 3 . Surviving animals were euthanized after the last blood collection prior to Day 30, tumors were excised, measured, weighted, photographed and sectioned for histological analysis. Our employees were involved in the design of this study and the results are unpublished. No adverse side effects of IMX-110 were observed as measured by lack of weight loss. 21 Figure 20: IMX-110 Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Monotherapy Statistically Significantly Inhibited Tumor Growth in Genetic (KPC) Pancreatic Cancer Pre-clinical Model (See above paragraph for study description. ImmixBio unpublished results.) In this pre-clinical study of IMX-110 monotherapy in the genetic KPC pancreatic cancer mouse model, one cycle of low-dose IMX-110 produced an average 43% reduction in tumor volume and weight at sacrifice vs. tumor volume and weight in untreated controls. IMX-110 Immunomodulation Effects In this pre-clinical study of IMX-110 monotherapy in the genetic KPC pancreatic mouse cancer model, our histological analysis showed that IMX-110 has the potential to transform “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors by eliminating immunosuppressive T-regulatory immune cells (top), enabling cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to enter the tumor (middle), and eliminating tumor vascularization (bottom). 22 Figure 21: IMX-110 Tissue-Specific Therapeutic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Monotherapy Turns “Cold” Tumors “Hot” in Genetic (KPC) Pancreatic Cancer Pre-clinical Model (See above paragraph for study description. ImmixBio unpublished results.) IMX-110 + Anti-PD-1 In published literature, the effect of a combination of murine anti-PD-1, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and murine anti-CD40 was studied in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (KPC), and produced median survival of 42 days. The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume and weight. Mice were treated intraperitoneally (i.p.) with murine anti-PD-1 (RMP1-14; BioXcell; 200 mg/dose) on days 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21 (after enrollment), with chemotherapy (gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel) injected i.p. at 120 mg/kg (for each chemotherapeutic) on day 1, and agonistic anti-CD40 (FGK45; BioXcell; 100 mg injected on day 3. For isotype controls, rat IgG2a (2A3; BioXcell; 100 mg) and rat IgG2b (LTF-2; BioXcell; 200 mg/dose) were used (6-8 mice per group). Duration of survival was studied. We did not fund or sponsor this study, and we were not involved in this study or its publication. 23 Figure 22: 4 Drug Combination (anti-PD-1, anti-CD40, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel) produced median 42 day survival in Genetic (KPC) Pancreatic Cancer Pre-clinical Model (See above paragraph for study description. Adapted from Winograd et al., 2015) A combination of IMX-110 + murine anti-PD-1 in a pre-clinical study in a genetic pancreatic cancer (KPC) mouse model that we funded produced extended median survival of 63 days. The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume and weight. Transgenic mice (Pdx1-Cre) were treated every day starting at day 0 (5 total tail vein injections) at a dose of 6 mg/kg CUR and 1.5 mg/kg DOX, and treated on days 5, 8, and 11 with murine anti-PD-1 (RMP1-14; BioXcell) 100μg/dose (three mice). This treatment was repeated started on day 21 and day 25. Duration of survival was studied. Tumors were periodically visualized using an in vivo luciferase assay. Our employees were involved in the design of this study and the results are unpublished. No adverse side effects of IMX-110 were observed as measured by lack of weight loss. 24 Figure 23: IMX-110 + murine anti-PD-1 Produced Extended Survival produced median 63 day survival in Genetic (KPC) Pancreatic Cancer Pre-clinical Model (See above paragraph for study description. ImmixBio unpublished results.) In our genetic pancreatic cancer (KPC) mouse model study, luciferase assay visually demonstrated tumor shrinkage in the IMX-110 + anti-PD-1 combination group throughout the study. 25 (See above paragraph for study description. ImmixBio unpublished results.) We believe there exists significant potential for TSTx IMX-110 to be an integral component of combination therapies for a wide range of advanced solid tumors. IMX-111 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology IMX-111 Market Opportunity The first potential indication we intend to pursue for IMX-111 is colorectal cancer (“CRC”). CRCs are cancers that arise from the colon, rectum and anus. According to American Cancer Society, there were roughly 149,500 new cases of colorectal cancer in the United States. Globally, there are roughly 1,930,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, of which 519,500 are in Europe, 148,500 are in Japan, 20,500 are in Australia and New Zealand, and 555,000 are in China. The five-year survival rate in the United States for all stages of CRC is 64.7%, but this falls to 14.7% for patients with late-stage metastatic disease. The colorectal cancer market is estimated to reach approximately $31.2 billion by 2025 from the estimated $26.3 billion in 2019. Drugs used to treat CRC include conventional irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, pembrolizumab (marketed as Keytruda®, by Merck & Co.), nivolumab (marketed as Opdivo®, by Bristol Meyers Squibb), bevacizumab (marketed as Avastin®, by Roche), and ramucirumab (marketed as Cyramza®, by Eli Lilly). 26 $33.38 billion is the total publicly disclosed combined annual sales of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®, Merck & Co.), nivolumab (Opdivo®), bevacizumab (Avastin®), and ramucirumab (Cyramza®) according to the most recent available annual reports. However, these therapies are either approved in combination with chemotherapies, or in a small subset of colorectal cancer patients. Table 2: Select Drugs Used To Treat Advanced Colorectal Cancer Drug Comments bevacizumab (Avastin®, Roche) Approved in combination with 5-FU or 5-FY/LV chemotherapy ramucirumab (Cyramza®, Eli Lilly) Approved in combination with FOLFIRI chemotherapy pembrolizumab (Keytruda®, Merck & Co.) Unresectable/metastatic MSI-H or mismatch repair deficient metastatic CRC that have progressed following prior treatment and have no alternative options / MSI-H or dMMR CRC (<10% of metastatic CRC) nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol Meyers Squibb) Advanced MSI-H/dMMR CRC who have progressed following treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (<10% of metastatic CRC) We intend to pursue IMX-111 for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (“aCRC”), which includes all CRC diagnosed with regional, distant, and other staging, and includes approximately 63% of all patients newly diagnosed with CRC annually. Treatment of aCRC typically involves removal of sections of the colon (colectomy) or rerouting of the intestine by colostomy. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including the above drugs, are also used to treat aCRC patients. IMX-111 Pre-clinical Data We have funded and sponsored pre-clinical experiments to characterize the activity profile of IMX-111 in a range of solid tumor models, xenograft mouse models of various cancers, and in vitro with various cancer cell lines. We observed that IMX-111 statistically significantly inhibited tumor growth in a pre-clinical study that we funded and was conducted on an industry sponsored research basis in a HCT-116 colon cancer xenograft mouse model (which is poorly sensitive to doxorubicin). The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume, with the secondary endpoint being overall survival. Female nude (NU/NU) mice bearing 250mm 3 HCT-116 tumors were treated every 2 days starting at day 0 (7 total tail vein injections, arrows correspond to injection days) at a dose of 4 mg/kg CUR and 0.4 mg/kg DOX (six mice per dosing group). Survival was determined when the tumor reached 1000mm 3 . Our employees were involved in the design of this study and Ilya Rachman, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors, was a co-author of the results published in 2013. No adverse side effects of IMX-111 were observed as measured by lack of weight loss. 27 Figure 24: IMX-111 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Statistically Significantly Inhibited Tumor Growth in HCT-116 Colorectal Cancer Pre-clinical Xenograft Model (See above paragraph for study description. Adapted from Abouzeid et al., 2013) In this pre-clinical study of IMX-111 in the HCT-116 colorectal cancer xenograft mouse model, at day 24, 100% of mice treated with 1 cycle of low-dose IMX-111 were alive while all control animals were dead. We observed that IMX-111 statistically significantly inhibited tumor growth in a pre-clinical study that we funded and was conducted on an industry sponsored research basis in a MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer xenograft mouse model (which is poorly sensitive to doxorubicin). The primary endpoint of the study was tumor growth inhibition as measured by tumor volume, with the secondary endpoint being overall survival. Female nude (NU/NU) mice bearing 150mm 3 MDA-MB-231 tumors were treated every 2 days starting at day 20 except last injection administered at day 33 (7 total IV injections) at a dose of 6 mg/kg CUR and 1 mg/kg DOX (at least six mice per dosing group). Survival was determined when the tumor reached 1000mm 3 . Our employees were involved in the design of this study and Ilya Rachman, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors, was a co-author of the results published in 2014. No adverse side effects of IMX-111 were observed as measured by lack of weight loss. 28 Figure 25: IMX-111 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Statistically Significantly Inhibited Tumor Growth in MDA-MB-231 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Xenograft Model (See above paragraph for study description. Adapted from Abouzeid et al., 2014) In this pre-clinical study of IMX-111 in the MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer xenograft mouse model, treatment with one cycle of low-dose IMX-111 resulted in 50% reduction in tumor mass, versus 33% growth in controls. The IMX-111 treatment effect lasted throughout the 52 day experiment duration. 29 IMX-111 Composition and Mechanism of Action Figure 26: IMX-111 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology for CRC IMX-111 is a Tissue-Specific Biologic TM built on our TME Normalization TM Technology with proprietary GLUT1 antibody biomarker targeting facilitating preferential accumulation in glucose-consuming cancer cells such as CRC. IMX-111 takes advantage of the fact that GLUT1 is an essential cancer biomarker that is overexpressed on 92% of colorectal cancer tumor cells and other tumor types. Furthermore, the degree of its overexpression correlates with more advanced stage of tumor progression. IMX-111 is the first cancer therapeutic to take advantage of this fact by coupling anti-GLUT1 antibody to our poly-kinase inhibitor / apoptosis inducer. IMX-111 is 17-23 nanometers in diameter, which is just larger than the size of an IgG antibody. Figure 27: IMX-111’s target GLUT1 is overexpressed on colorectal and other cancers (Adapted from a review paper by Amann, et al., 2009. We did not fund or sponsor this study, and we were not involved in this study or its publication.) GLUT1 is a glucose transporter which is overexpressed on 92% of CRC, making GLUT1 a prime biomarker for IMX-111 targeting in CRC. 30 Figure 28: IMX-111’s target GLUT1 overexpression is associated with a poor prognosis (Adapted from Shen, et al., 2011 and Haber, et al., 1998. Shen, et al.: Expression of GLUT1 in 163 primary patient colorectal cancer tumors was examined using real-time PCR. Haber, et al.: GLUT1 glucose transporter immunostaining was studied in normal colon and benign colon adenomas and in 112 colorectal carcinomas from patients with known clinical outcomes. We did not fund or sponsor these studies, and we were not involved in these studies or their publication.) GLUT1 overexpression in CRC correlates with advanced, later stage (stage III-IV) disease. Heavy GLUT1 staining is observed in cancerous colorectal tissue versus healthy normal colon. Figure 29: IMX-111 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with TME Normalization TM Technology Intracellular Mechanism of Action Once IMX-111 enters the TME, consisting of: 1) CAFs, 2) TAMs/immune cells, and 3) cancer itself, it binds to its GLUT1 biomarker target and empties its poly-kinase inhibitor / apoptosis inducer payload into these cells, causing tumor apoptosis. Specifically, IMX-111 induces potent tumor killing by blocking multiple tumor escape pathways targeted by FDA approved targeted agents and targeted agents in development (see Table 1). 31 IMX-111 Development Strategy We plan to conduct IND-enabling studies for IMX-111 by mid-2022, pursuing advanced colorectal cancer as the initial indication. We anticipate filing an IND for IMX-111 in 2023. We plan to initiate a Phase 1b/2a study with IMX-111 in solid tumors in the United States and Australia, with the first patient anticipated to be dosed in 2023. We plan for IMX-111 to pursue advanced colorectal cancer as its initial indication. IMX-120 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with Immune Normalization Technology TM for inflammatory bowel disease IMX-120 Market Opportunity The first potential indications we intend to pursue for IMX-120 are ulcerative colitis (“UC”) and severe Crohn’s disease (“CD”), which are both forms of inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”). IBD is estimated to affect over 2,000,000 people in the United States and over 5,000,000 people globally. IBD is a complex gastrointestinal disease caused primarily by a dysregulated immune system. Drugs used to treat IBD include adalimumab (marketed as Humira®, by Abbvie), ustekinumab (marketed as Stelara®, by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), and vedolizumab (marketed as Entyvio®, by Takeda). $26.76 billion is the total publicly disclosed combined annual sales of adalimumab (Humira®), ustekinumab (Stelara®), and vedolizumab (Entyvio®, Takeda) according to the most recent available annual reports. Endpoints for clinical trials in IBD are measured in terms of remission rates at 4-8 weeks post treatment. For adalimumab (Humira®), in a study of moderate-to-severe UC who received concurrent treatment with oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, overall rates of clinical remission at week 8 were 16.5% on adalimumab and 9.3% on placebo, according to Sandborn et al., 2012. For ustekinumab (Stelara®), in a study of moderate-to-severe UC, overall rates of clinical remission at week 8 were 15.6% on 130mg intravenous ustekinumab and 5.3% on placebo, according to Sands et al., 2019. For vedolizumab (Entyvio®), in a study of moderately to severely active UC, overall rates of clinical remission at week 6 were 17% on vedolizumab and 5% on placebo, according to the FDA Entyvio® Prescribing Label. UC and CD are two of the most common forms of IBD. Both UC and CD are chronic, relapsing, remitting, inflammatory conditions of the gastrointestinal tract that begin most commonly during adolescence and young adulthood. UC involves the innermost lining of the large intestine, and symptoms include abdominal pain and diarrhea, frequently with blood and mucus. CD can affect the entire thickness of the bowel wall and all parts of the gastrointestinal tract from mouth to anus. CD symptoms include abdominal pain, diarrhea, and other more systemic symptoms such as weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, and fever. The current standard of care for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe IBD is typically anti-inflammatory agents. The majority of IBD patients do not respond to first-line anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. The approvals of the first anti-tumor necrosis factor agent for the treatment of CD in 1998 and newer biological agents, including anti-integrin and anti-IL12/23, have improved the care of moderate-to-severe IBD. However, these subsequently approved therapies in UC have generally failed to demonstrate a clinical remission effect size of more than 15% relative to placebo. Moreover, among those patients who do respond to therapy, up to 50% will lose response over time. Additionally, the markets for UC and CD represent a high unmet need patient population. Only 2 out of 5 UC patients are on advanced therapy. 32 IMX-120 Composition and Mechanism of Action Figure 30: IMX-120 Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with Immune Normalization Technology TM for inflammatory bowel disease IMX-120, built on our SMAR x T Tissue-Specific TM Platform with shared CMC and design elements with our other drug candidates, is a Tissue-Specific Biologic TM with proprietary GLUT1/confidential target antibody encapsulating polyphenol poly-kinase inhibitors selectively silencing disease-causing inflammatory bowel immune cells. Driving inflammatory bowel disease are the interactions between 3 components of the immune synapse: 1) gut-lining enterocytes, 2) gut microbes, and 3) gut-resident immune cells. Cellular contacts and signaling molecules exchanged between these components activate abnormal inflammatory responses in immune cells driving a self-sustaining feed-forward loop of pathological inflammation in gastrointestinal tissues. Through simultaneous repression of pathological inflammatory signaling in all of these components at the same time, Immune Normalization TM Technology halts this self-sustaining feed-forward loop propagated among these 3 components, addressing the root cause of inflammatory pathologies. IBD is caused by a dysregulated, chronic, pathological immune response by bowel immune cells to the microbiome and other components of the gastrointestinal cellular environment. In the process of becoming dysregulated, cytotoxic T-cells and macrophages secrete signaling cytokines, resulting in a self-sustaining feed-forward loop of inflammation. Similar to tumor growth, these inflammatory processes active in IBD are caused by recurring waves of activation of multiple kinases that upregulate NF-κB, STAT3 and other key transcriptional factors. IMX-120 takes advantage of the fact that overexpression and activation of GLUT1 on overactive immune cells has been shown to be widely present in patients with IBD. IMX-120’s polyphenol poly-kinase inhibitors block upstream kinase signal transduction systems that activate NF-κB and STAT3, thus shutting down the self-sustaining feed-forward loop of inflammation. GLUT1 presents an ideal targeting moiety for these overactive immune cells, allowing for tissue-specific delivery of IMX-120. Curcuminoid polyphenols have been generally well-tolerated in multiple clinical trials, two of which are summarized below. 33 In a randomized, multi-center placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 50 mesalamine-treated patients with active mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) (defined by the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, or SCCAI) who did not respond to an additional 2 weeks of the maximum dose of mesalamine oral and topical therapy, patients were randomly assigned to groups who were given curcumin capsules (3 g/day, n = 26) or an identical placebo (n = 24) for 1 month, with continued mesalamine. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical remission (SCCAI <=2) at week 4. Clinical and endoscopic responses were also recorded. The incidence of adverse effects was not significantly different between the 2 arms. The primary results of the trial at 4 weeks are outlined in the figure below (left hand side). In a randomized, double-blinded study performed at 5 independent medical centers in Japan, curcuminoid Theracurmin (360 mg/day, 20 patients) or placebo (10 patients) was administered to patients with active mild-to-moderate Crohn’s disease (CD) for 12 weeks. The agent’s clinical activity was assessed by evaluating clinical and endoscopic remission, healing of anal lesions, and blood levels of inflammatory markers. The primary endpoint was the difference in Crohn’s disease activity index, or CDAI, improvement between the Theracurmin and placebo groups when comparing week 12 to week 0. No serious adverse events were observed in either group throughout the study. The primary results of the trial at 4 weeks are outlined in the figure below (right hand side). For both studies, because of the lack of previous data on the subject, a formal power analysis calculation of sample size was not performed. Also for both studies, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. For all results below, p values of differences between placebo and treatment group was < 0.05. We did not fund or sponsor these studies, and we were not involved in these studies or their publications. Figure 31: Polyphenols have shown promise in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s (Adapted from Lang, et al., 2015 and Sugimoto et al., 2020. See above paragraphs for study descriptions) Despite an almost complete lack of bioavailability in oral form, a polyphenol (curcumin) showed signs of clinical activity in a 50 patient UC study, with >50% remission rate in the treatment arm at week 4 compared to a 0-13% remission rate in a control group at week 4. In a 30 patient CD study, a polyphenol (theracurmin) produced a 35% clinical remission rate in the treatment arm at week 4 compared to 0% in a control group at week 4. With IMX-120’s proprietary GLUT1 targeting, we believe the potential for IMX-120 in IBD is favorable. 34 Figure 32: GLUT1 targeting significantly reduces IBD inflammation in in vitro models (Adapted from Macintyre et al., 2014 and Renaudin et al., 2020. See below paragraph for study descriptions. We did not fund or sponsor these studies, and we were not involved in these studies or their publications.) In inflammatory bowel disease in mice, GLUT1 appears to be required for metabolic reprogramming of CD4 T cells into T effector cells that are critical for induction of disease-causing inflammation (above figure left hand side graphical abstract). In mice, GLUT1 inhibition results in the reduction of global tissue inflammatory score observed by hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining (above figure right hand side). 35 Figure 33: IMX-120 silences disease causing inflammatory bowel immune cells (Illustrative figure adapted from Alzahrani, et al., 2019. We did not fund or sponsor this study, and we were not involved in this study or its publication.) IMX-120 targets GLUT1 and a second proprietary target that were described in the literature as key activators of overactive immune response, that are expected to allow IMX-120 to selectively silence disease-causing, overactive inflammatory bowel immune cells with its polyphenol poly-kinase inhibitors. IMX-120 Development Strategy We plan to conduct IND-enabling studies for IMX-120 by mid-2022, pursuing ulcerative colitis and severe Crohn’s disease indications. We anticipate filing an IND for IMX-120 in 2023. We plan to initiate a Phase 1b/2a study with IMX-120 in IBD in the United States and Australia with the first patient anticipated to be dosed in 2023. We plan for IMX-120 to pursue UC and severe CD indications. Manufacturing We have already established a track record of producing 4 batches of our Tissue-Specific Therapeutics (TSTx) TM according to current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), and have treated 14 patients so-far in our ongoing Phase 1b/2a clinical trial as of March 2022. 36 We will continue to leverage our established technical, manufacturing, analytical, quality, cGMP, project management expertise and existing relationships to contract with appropriate CMOs to manufacture our TSTx TM moving forward. We currently do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities. To date, we have obtained active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) and drug product for our product candidates from several third party contract manufacturers. We are in the process of developing our supply chain for each of our product candidates and have entered into agreements pursuant to which third-party contract manufacturers will provide us with necessary quantities of API and drug product on a project-by-project basis based upon our needs. We rely, and expect to continue to rely for the foreseeable future, on FDA, EMA, or other jurisdiction-registered third-party contract manufacturing organizations to produce our product candidates for pre-clinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval. As part of the manufacture and design process for our product candidates, we rely on internal, scientific and manufacturing know-how and trade secrets and the know-how and trade secrets of third-party manufacturers. We also contract with additional third parties for the filling, labeling, packaging, storage and distribution of investigational drug products. We believe that this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the development of our product candidates. We maintain agreements with our manufacturers that include confidentiality and intellectual property, and quality provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our product candidates and satisfy regulatory requirements. Competition The biotechnology industry is extremely competitive in the race to develop new products. While we believe we have significant competitive advantages with our years of expertise in systems biology drug design, pharmacology and drug delivery, and clinical depth, trials and expertise, and intellectual property position, we currently face and will continue to face competition for our development programs from groups that are developing therapies for oncology and inflammation. The competition is likely to come from multiple sources, including larger pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions. Companies developing therapies for both oncology and inflammation include, but are not limited to, Kymera Therapeutics Inc., Morphic Holding Inc., and RAPT Therapeutics Inc. Companies developing therapies for IBD (including UC and CD) include, but are not limited to, Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Landos Biopharma Inc., and Seres Therapeutics Inc. IMX-110 – Soft Tissue Sarcoma Drugs in trials to treat STS include nivolumab (marketed as Opdivo®, by Bristol Meyers Squibb), ipilimumab (marketed as Yervoy®, by Merck & Co), and pembrolizumab (marketed as Keytruda®, by Merck & Co). Nivolumab (Opdivo®), was trialed in a study in which 61% of patients had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy prior to nivolumab. Nivolumab monotherapy produced a mPFS in sarcoma of 1.7 months, according to D’Angelo et al., 2018. Nivolumab (Opdivo®) and ipilimumab (Yervoy®), were trialed in a study in which 61% of patients had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy prior to a combination of nivolumab + ipilimumab. Nivolumab + ipilimumab combination therapy produced a mPFS in sarcoma of 4.1 months, according to D’Angelo et al., 2018. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®, Merck & Co), was trialed in a study in which 42% of patients had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy prior to pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy produced a mPFS in sarcoma of 4.2 months, according to Tawbi et al., 2017. In addition to the above, companies with approved therapies and that are developing therapies for soft tissue sarcoma include, but are not limited to, BioAtla Inc., Epizyme Inc., Nanobiotix SA, C4 Therapeutics, Inc., Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc, Eisai, Novartis, and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson. 37 Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our strategy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover our product candidates and related components, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, our proprietary reagents and assays, and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We also rely on trademarks as well as trade secret protection of our confidential information and know-how relating to our proprietary technology platform, and product candidates. We believe that we have substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to our technology and product candidates. As of March 23, 2022, our patent portfolio includes 11 U.S. and foreign patents, 4 pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, and 3 pending U.S. provisional patent applications related to our technology platform and our product candidates. Of those, 1 patent has been granted in the U.S. and 10 patents have been granted in the following countries: France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. One non-provisional patent application is currently pending in the U.S. and 3 foreign patent applications are currently pending before the European Patent Office, and in China and Hong Kong. Certain platform patents are expected to remain in force until 2033. Other patents directed to platform technology are expected to remain in force until 2036. The below patents and patent applications comprise our patent portfolio. All of the patents and patent applications listed below are owned by us. Jurisdiction Status Number Title Expected Expiration Date Type of Patent Protection United States Patent 9,833,508 Cancer therapeutics 03/15/2033 Methods of treatment United States Pending 16/789,401 Methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer 03/15/2033 Compositions and methods of treatment United States Provisional 63/210,212 Nanoparticles for the treatment of inflammatory diseases 06/14/2022 Compositions and methods of treatment United States Provisional 63/219,348 Nanoparticles for cancer treatment 07/07/2022 Compositions and methods of treatment United States Provisional 63/261,730 Nanoparticles for cancer treatment 09/27/2022 Compositions and methods of treatment France Patent 13760370.0 Micelles ciblant le Glut-1 et comprenant de la curcumine (Glut-1 targeted and curcumin loaded micelles) 03/15/2033 Compositions Germany Patent 13760370.0 Glut-1 zielgerichtete und mit Kurkumin beladene Mizellen (Glut-1 targeted and curcumin loaded micelles) 03/15/2033 Compositions Ireland Patent 13760370.0 Glut-1 targeted and curcumin loaded micelles 03/15/2033 Compositions Switzerland Patent 13760370.0 Glut-1 zielgerichtete und mit Kurkumin beladene Mizellen (Glut-1 targeted and curcumin loaded micelles) 03/15/2033 Compositions United Kingdom Patent 13760370.0 Glut-1 targeted and curcumin loaded micelles 03/15/2033 Compositions 38 European Patent Office Pending 20196191.9 Micelle comprising an inhibitor of NF-KB 03/15/2033 Compositions Hong Kong Pending 42021037058.1 Cancer therapeutics 03/15/2033 Compositions China Pending 201680069854.2 用于治疗癌症的放大和相关组合物 (Methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer) 10/21/2036 Compositions, methods and use France Patent 16858309.4 Méthodes et compositions associées pour le traitement du cancer (methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer) 10/21/2036 Compositions Germany Patent 16858309.4 Verfahren und verwandte zusammensetzungen zur behandlung von krebs (methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer) 10/21/2036 Compositions Ireland Patent 16858309.4 Methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer 10/21/2036 Compositions Switzerland Patent 16858309.4 Verfahren und verwandte zusammensetzungen zur behandlung von krebs (methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer) 10/21/2036 Compositions United Kingdom Patent 16858309.4 Methods and related compositions for the treatment of cancer 10/21/2036 Compositions We generally pursue multilayered patent protection covering the composition of matter including the formulations of the product candidates, and/or the functional characteristics of the product candidates. In addition to composition of matter coverage, we also generally pursue claims directed to methods of making, and methods of use of the product candidates. IP License Agreement with Immix Biopharma Australia Pty Ltd. On January 23, 2017, we entered into an IP License Agreement (“License Agreement”) with Immix Biopharma Australia Pty Ltd., our wholly-owned subsidiary (“IBAPL”), pursuant to which we granted IBAPL a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to IMX-110 intellectual property that is necessary for the purpose of, among other things, conducting or facilitating the research, development or clinical trials relating to such intellectual property in the Commonwealth of Australia. Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, during the term of the License Agreement, IBAPL shall pay us a royalty equal to a mid single digit percentage of Net Sales (as defined in the License Agreement), subject to adjustment as set forth in the License Agreement. The License Agreement may be terminated by either party (i) upon 20 days prior written notice to the other party, (ii) if the other party breaches any provision of the License Agreement and fails to remedy such breach within 10 business days after receiving written notice of such breach or (iii) if the other party is the subject to an insolvency event as set forth in the License Agreement. To date, we have not received any payments pursuant to the License Agreement. 39 AxioMx Master Services Agreement On December 22, 2014, we entered into a Master Service Agreement (“MSA”) with AxioMx, Inc. (“AxioMx”) which is in the business of developing and supplying custom affinity reagents. We entered into the MSA to serve as a master agreement governing multiple sets of projects as may be agreed upon us and AxioMx from time to time. Pursuant to the MSA, we granted AxioMx a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, non-transferable license to certain of our intellectual property to perform services pursuant to the MSA, and AxioMx granted us an exclusive product assignment option which grants us an exclusive, royalty-bearing right, with the right to sublicense, under the Deliverable (as defined in the MSA) to further research, develop, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export one or more assigned products pursuant to the MSA. We exercised the option in 2017. Pursuant to the MSA, AxioMx is entitled to royalties on the sale of any Deliverable that is used for diagnostic, prognostic or therapeutic purposes, in humans or animals, or for microbiology testing, including food safety testing or environmental monitoring. Specifically, we shall pay AxioMx a royalty of 3.5% of Net Sales (as defined in the MSA) of assigned products for each Deliverable used in licensed products for therapeutic purposes. In addition, we shall pay AxioMx a royalty of 1.5% of Net Sales of assigned products for each Deliverable used in licensed products for diagnostic or prognostic purposes; provided, however, if three Deliverables are used in an assigned product for diagnostic or prognostic purposes, the royalty shall be 4.5%. Subject to certain exceptions, the MSA shall continue for a period of five years from the effective date, unless extended by us and AxioMx. The MSA may be terminated by either party upon a material breach of the MSA, which breach remains uncured for 30 days after written notice thereof. In addition, we may also terminate the MSA at any time upon 30 days prior written notice to AxioMx. The MSA has not been amended or extended, however, the royalty obligations described in this paragraph survive the termination of the MSA. Recent Developments On January 5, 2022, we sold 630,000 shares of our common stock in connection with our initial public offering pursuant to the underwriter’s option to purchase additional shares to cover over-allotments for a purchase price of $5.00 per share. We received net proceeds of approximately $2.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses borne by us. Government Regulations United States Regulation of Drugs and Biologics We expect that IMX-110 will be regulated by the FDA as a complex non-biologic, and will require submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the FDA. We expect that IMX-111 and IMX-120 will be regulated by the FDA as a biological product, or biologic, which will require submission of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA. We expect to pursue United States and global regulatory designations, vouchers, conditional approvals and accelerated approvals where appropriate. Our business activities are subject to various laws, rules and regulations of the United States as well as of foreign governments. The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state, and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring, and post-approval reporting of drug products such as those we are developing. We, along with third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various pre-clinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. The process required by the FDA before drug candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: ● completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulation; ● submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”), which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made; ● approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial is commenced; ● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug candidate for its intended purpose; 40 ● preparation of and submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA after completion of all pivotal clinical trials; ● satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable; ● a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA or BLA to file the application for review; ● satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with current good clinical practice (“cGCP”); and ● FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States. Pre-clinical and Clinical Development Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCP, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. For purposes of NDA or BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. ● Phase 1— The investigational product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. ● Phase 2— The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. Some trials may combine aspects of Phase 1 and Phase 2 into a single clinical trial that can examine both safety in healthy volunteers and safety and preliminary efficacy in patients with a specific disease. 41 ● Phase 3— The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval. A registrational trial is a clinical trial that adequately meets regulatory agency requirements for the evaluation of a drug candidate’s efficacy and safety such that it can be used to justify the approval of the drug. Generally, registrational trials are Phase 3 trials but may be Phase 2 trials if the trial design provides a reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in situations where there is an unmet medical need. In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the NDA or BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the characteristics of the product candidate and must 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, must develop methods for testing the final product. Additionally, 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. NDA or BLA Submission and Review Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, non-clinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The NDA or BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent pre-clinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. A determination by the FDA within 60 days of the receipt of an NDA or BLA to file the application for review for its completeness is initiated at the time of submission. If the FDA determines there is significance to the missing or incomplete information in the context of the proposed drug product, the proposed indication(s) and the amount of time needed to address any given deficiency, it can issue a refusal-to-file letter. The submission of an NDA or BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies. Once an NDA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews an NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the product will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA or BLA. In issuing the Complete Response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA or BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA or BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product. 42 If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA or BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA offers several expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once an NDA or BLA 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 or BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA or BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA or BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. 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. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition compared to marketed products. For products containing new molecular entities, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take 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 generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical 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. 43 Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity), which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA or BLA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the application user fee. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Post-Approval Requirements Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved NDA or BLA. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under an REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: ● restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of a product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; ● fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials; 44 ● refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of existing product approvals; ● product seizure or detention, or refusal of the FDA to permit the import or export of products; or ● injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics and drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. Europe European Drug Development In the European Union, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the European Union, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the Member State regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”), and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred. The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“CTR”), which replaced the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The CTR became applicable on January 31, 2022. There is a three-year transition period, where entities that set up clinical trials will have time to transition ongoing trials to the new CTR. By January 31, 2025, all clinical trials must be transitioned to the CTR. The new regulation will be directly applicable in all Member States (and so does not require national implementing legislation in each Member State), and aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical studies in the EU, by providing, for example a streamlined application procedure via a single point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical study applications. 45 European Drug Review and Approval In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the Member States of the European Union together with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). There are two main types of MAs: ● The centralized MA is 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 EMA, and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products ( i.e ., gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA (for indications other than those identified above), or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the European Union. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MA application by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MA application considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of a MA application under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. ● National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this national MA can be recognized in other Member States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics, or SmPC, and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States) for their approval. If the Concerned Member States raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the Concerned Member States). Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. European New Chemical Entity Exclusivity In the EEA, medicinal products for human use qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization, for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an application with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials. 46 European orphan designation and exclusivity In the EEA, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions which either affect no more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union, or where it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. In each case, no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment has been authorized (or, if such a method exists, the product in question would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition). In the EEA, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following marketing approval for the orphan product. This period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. During the period of market exclusivity, marketing authorization may only be granted to a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication if: (i) a second applicant can establish that its product, although similar to the authorized product, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. European pediatric investigation plan In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”), with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”), and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The 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 this data is 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. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP (even where such results are negative) are eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval). In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted. PRIME Designation In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is a voluntary scheme intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation, where the marketing authorization application will be made through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which where is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EEA or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the EMA’s CHMP or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn. 47 Australia Our clinical trial for IMX-110 is being conducted in Australia and the United States. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”) and the National Health and Medical Research Council set the GCP requirements for clinical research in Australia, and compliance with these codes is mandatory. Australia has also adopted international codes, such as those promulgated by the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”). The ICH guidelines must be followed across all areas of clinical research, including those related to pharmaceutical quality, nonclinical and clinical data requirements and trial designs. The basic requirements for preclinical data to support a first-in-human trial under ICH guidelines are applicable in Australia. Requirements related to adverse event reporting in Australia are similar to those required in other major jurisdictions. Clinical trials conducted using “unapproved therapeutic goods” in Australia, being those which have not yet been evaluated by the TGA for quality, safety and efficacy must occur pursuant to either the Clinical Trial Notification Scheme (“CTN Scheme”) or the Clinical Trial Exemption Scheme (“CTX Scheme”). In each case, the trial is supervised by a Human Research Ethics Committee (“HREC”), an independent review committee set up under guidelines of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council that ensures the protection of rights, safety and well-being of human subjects involved in a clinical trial. A HREC does this by reviewing, approving and providing continuing examination of trial protocols and amendments, and of the methods and material to be used in obtaining and documenting informed consent of the trial subjects. The CTN Scheme broadly involves: ● completion of preclinical laboratory and animal testing; ● submission to a HREC, of all material relating to the proposed clinical trial, including the trial protocol; ● the institution or organization at which the trial will be conducted, referred to as the “Approving Authority”, giving final approval for the conduct of the trial at the site, having regard to the advice from the HREC; and ● the investigator submitting a ‘Notification of Intent to Conduct a Clinical Trial’ form, or CTN Form, to the TGA. The CTN form must be signed by the sponsor, the principal investigator, the chairman of the HREC and a person responsible from the Approving Authority. The TGA does not review any data relating to the clinical trial however CTN trials cannot commence until the trial has been notified to the TGA. Under the CTX Scheme: ● a sponsor submits an application to conduct a clinical trial to the TGA for evaluation and comment; and ● a sponsor must forward any comments made by the TGA Delegate to the HREC(s) at the sites where the trial will be conducted. A sponsor cannot commence a trial under the CTX Scheme until written advice has been received from the TGA regarding the application and approval for the conduct of the trial has been obtained from an ethics committee and the institution at which the trial will be conducted. 48 The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act) requires that medical products, including pharmaceuticals, imported into, supplied in, or exported from Australia be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (“ARTG”). In order to obtain registration of the product on the ARTG: ● Sponsors must provide a product application containing adequate nonclinical data as well as data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic product; ● Sponsors also must provide information demonstrating that the manufacture and quality of the therapeutic product complies with the principles of cGMP; ● TGA then evaluates the application data, taking into account recommendations from an advisory committee, such as the Advisory Committee on Medicines, which makes recommendations to the TGA as to whether or not to grant approval to include the therapeutic product in the ARTG; and ● TGA must decide to include the therapeutic product on the ARTG. Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Products in Other Jurisdictions The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, drug licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our drugs will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical drugs and services. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic drugs. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property protection, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower-cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for our product candidates, once approved, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. 49 Healthcare Laws and Regulations Sales of our product candidates, if approved, will be subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we might conduct our business. The healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include the following: ● The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a criminal statute, makes it illegal for any person or entity to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is in exchange for or to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Civil Monetary Penalties Law also contains a provision that prohibits the payment of anything of value in return for referrals and provides for the imposition of civil penalties. ● Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent. ● Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Health Information and Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and their implementing regulations at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162 and 164, as amended (“HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors or making any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. ● HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and their implementing regulations, imposes obligations on certain types of individuals and entities regarding the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information. ● The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Also, many states have similar laws and regulations, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, we may be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the federal government’s and/or pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, as well as state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA. These laws are subject to extensive and increasing enforcement by numerous federal, state, and local government agencies including the Office of Inspector General, the Department of Justice, the CMS, the Office of Civil Rights, and various state authorities. Additionally, to the extent that our product is sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws. Employees As of March 23, 2022, we had two full-time employees, no part-time employees and seven consultants. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreements. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees. Our Corporate History We were incorporated as a California limited liability company in 2012 and converted to a Delaware corporation in January 2014. In August 2016, we established a wholly-owned Australian subsidiary, Immix Biopharma Australia Pty Ltd., in order to conduct various pre-clinical and clinical activities for the development of our product candidates. 50 Available Information Our website address is www.immixbio.com . The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our website address is included in this document as an inactive textual reference only. We make our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. The public may read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov . The information contained in the SEC’s website is not intended to be a part of this filing.