Nurix Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

nrix-20251130 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ___________________________________________________________________________________ FORM 10-K ___________________________________________________________________________________ (Mark One) x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended November 30 , 2025 OR o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO Commission File Number 001-39398 ___________________________________________________________________________________ NURIX THERAPEUTICS, INC. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Delaware 27-0838048 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1600 Sierra Point Parkway Brisbane , CA 94005 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 415 ) 660-5320 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share NRIX Nasdaq Global Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No o Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes x No o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o Smaller reporting company o Emerging growth company o If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. x The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the Registrant’s common stock on May 30, 2025 (the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) as reported by the Nasdaq Global Market on such date was approximately $ 807.5 million. This calculation does not reflect a determination that certain persons are affiliates of the Registrant for any other purpose. As of January 23, 2026, the Registrant had 102,843,012 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Certain sections of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with the Registrant’s 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated. Such definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended November 30, 2025. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I Item 1. Business 4 Item 1A. Risk Factors 50 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 107 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 108 Item 2. Properties 109 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 109 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 109 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 110 Item 6. [Reserved] 111 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 112 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 125 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 126 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 159 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 159 Item 9B. Other Information 159 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspection 160 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 161 Item 11. Executive Compensation 161 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 161 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 161 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 161 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 162 Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 166 Signatures 167 SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K other than statements of historical fact, including statements concerning our business strategy and plans, future operating results and financial position, as well as our objectives and expectations for our future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by such terminology as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “expect” and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about: • the timing and conduct of our clinical trial programs for our lead drug candidates bexobrutideg (NX-5948), zelebrudomide (NX-2127) and NX-1607 and other drug candidates, including statements regarding the timing of data and anticipated announcements, the selection of new development candidates and the initiation of clinical trials; • the timing of, and our ability to obtain, marketing approvals for our lead drug candidates bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 and other drug candidates; • our plans to pursue research and development of other drug candidates; • the timing of investigational new drug application (IND) submissions for our drug candidates; • the potential advantages of our DEL-AI platform, our drug candidates and degrader antibody conjugates (DACs); • the extent to which our scientific approach, our DEL-AI platform, protein degradation, antibody-drug conjugation, and DACs may potentially address a broad range of diseases; • the potential benefits of our arrangements with Gilead Sciences, Inc., Sanofi S.A. and Seagen Inc. (now a part of Pfizer Inc.); • the timing of and our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our drug candidates; • the potential receipt of revenue from future sales of our drug candidates; • the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of our drug candidates; • our estimates regarding the potential market opportunity for our drug candidates; • our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and strategy; • our ability to establish and maintain arrangements for the manufacturing of our drug candidates; • the expected impact of global business, political and macroeconomic conditions, including inflation, interest rate fluctuations and volatile market conditions, changing tariff policies and trade restrictions, uncertainty with respect to the federal budget and debt ceiling and potential government shutdowns related thereto, cybersecurity events, instability in the global banking system, and global events, including regional conflicts around the world, on our business, clinical trials, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations; • the potential achievement of milestones and receipt of royalty payments under our collaborations; • our ability to enter into additional collaborations with third parties; • our intellectual property position; • our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing; • the impact of government laws and regulations; and • our competitive position. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects and financial needs. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. We disclaim any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements for any reason or to conform such statements to actual results or revised expectations, except as required by law. 1 RISK FACTOR SUMMARY Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those risks discussed at-length below. These risks include, among others, the following: • We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses over at least the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability. • We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never be profitable. • We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research or product development programs or future commercialization efforts. • Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us, and any collaborators, to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our drug candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain. • We are early in our development efforts. Our lead drug candidates, bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607, are in the early stages of clinical development. If we are unable to advance our drug candidates through clinical development, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our drug candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed. • Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. • If serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics are identified during the development of any drug candidates we may develop, we may need to abandon or limit our further clinical development of those drug candidates. • The results of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. Initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later-stage trials or when these trials are completed. • We have received Orphan Drug Designation for bexobrutideg and may seek Orphan Drug Designation for other drug candidates in the future. If we decide to seek Orphan Drug Designation or other designations from regulators for any of our current or future drug candidates, we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with these designations, including the potential for supplemental market exclusivity associated with an Orphan Drug Designation. • If any of our drug candidates are not considered to be a new active substance or are deemed to fall within the “global marketing authorization” of an existing medicinal product or if pediatric studies are not adequately completed, such drug candidates may fail to obtain regulatory data protection or an extension to existing regulatory data protection. • We face substantial competition in an environment of rapid technological change, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do. • We expect to depend on collaborations with third parties for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the drug candidates we may develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of those drug candidates. • We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for any future clinical trials and commercialization. This reliance on third parties may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. • If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology, our current drug candidates and any future drug candidates that we may develop, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors and other third parties could develop and commercialize technology and drug candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drug candidates may be impaired, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. • We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on our business. 2 • Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition, stock price and results of operations. • If we fail to attract and retain management and other key personnel, we may be unable to continue to successfully develop our current and any future drug candidates, commercialize our drug candidates or otherwise implement our business plan. • Even if we are able to commercialize any drug candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, or fail to secure a positive health technology assessment, which would harm our business. 3 PART I Item 1. Business When used in this report, unless otherwise indicated, “Nurix,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refers to Nurix Therapeutics, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Overview We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of targeted protein degradation medicines, the next frontier in innovative drug design aimed at improving treatment options for patients with cancer and inflammatory diseases. Powered by a fully artificial intelligence (AI)-integrated discovery engine capable of tackling any protein class, and coupled with leading ligase expertise, Nurix has built a significant advantage in translating the science of protein degradation into clinical advancements with the aim of establishing degrader-based treatments at the forefront of patient care. Our wholly owned, clinical stage pipeline includes three investigational drug candidates designed with the goal to be first-in-class or best-in-class therapeutics: bexobrutideg (NX-5948), a highly selective degrader of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK); zelebrudomide (NX-2127), a dual degrader of BTK and transcription factors IKZF1(Ikaros) and IKZF3 (Aiolos); and NX-1607, an inhibitor of Casitas B-lineage lymphoma proto-oncogene B (CBL-B), an E3 ligase that regulates activation of multiple immune cell types including T cells and NK cells. We are also advancing multiple potentially first-in-class or best-in-class degraders and degrader antibody conjugates (DACs) in our preclinical pipeline. Our partnered drug discovery pipeline consists of a clinical stage degrader of IRAK4 (NX-0479/GS-6791), a preclinical stage degrader of STAT6, currently in investigational new drug application (IND), enabling studies, and multiple currently undisclosed targets under collaboration agreements with Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), Sanofi S.A. (Sanofi) and Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer). Within these collaborations, we retain certain options for co-development, co-commercialization and profit sharing in the United States for multiple drug candidates. Both our wholly owned and partnered pipelines are driven by our DEL-AI discovery engine which employs advanced machine learning to enable all aspects of discovery, starting with DNA encoded library (DEL) hit-finding and degrader design, followed by automated chemistry synthesis and direct-to-biology screening and optimization, to rapidly generate degraders and DACs as new chemical entity drug candidates. By leveraging hundreds of billions of DEL compound binding signatures derived from thousands of DEL affinity screens collected from a diverse set of highly validated protein targets, our DEL-AI engine can prospectively identify binders as starting points for drug discovery for virtually any pharmaceutically relevant target. Our Clinical and Preclinical Development Pipeline Our wholly owned pipeline of drug candidates comprises three clinical stage oncology programs and multiple preclinical stage Targeted Protein Degrader (TPD) and Degrader Antibody Conjugate (DAC) programs spanning the therapeutic areas of oncology, inflammation and immunology. Our partnered pipeline further expands our reach into rheumatoid arthritis and Type 2 inflammation, as well as solid tumor oncology via multiple undisclosed programs. This combination of wholly owned and partnered portfolios across a range of indications and modalities demonstrates our ability to discover and advance novel medicines, many of which selectively target disease proteins previously thought to be undruggable. The following chart summarizes our clinical and preclinical pipelines and ongoing clinical studies: 4 Clinical Pipeline Our portfolio of targeted protein degraders of the B‑cell signaling protein BTK comprises bexobrutideg, an investigational, orally bioavailable, highly selective BTK degrader for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies and potentially autoimmune diseases, and zelebrudomide, an investigational, orally bioavailable degrader that simultaneously degrades BTK and two well-characterized cereblon neosubstrates IKZF1 (Ikaros) and IKZF3 (Aiolos) that are clinically validated transcription factor targets for relapsed or refractory B‑cell malignancies. Status of Bexobrutideg: We are currently conducting a Phase 2 study of bexobrutideg in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL having failed three previous lines of therapy, specifically a covalent BTK inhibitor (cBTKi), a BCL2 inhibitor (BCL2i) and a non-covalent BTK inhibitor (ncBTKi). This study is designed as a potentially pivotal trial for Accelerated Approval in the United States and commenced in October 2025 upon agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the use of the 600mg, once daily dose of bexobrutideg as determined by our Phase 1b study of both a 200mg and a 600mg dose in patients in accordance with the FDA’s Project Optimus. In January 2024, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for bexobrutideg for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) after at least two lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor. In November 2024, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted Priority Medicine (PRIME) designation for bexobrutideg in CLL or SLL after at least a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. In December 2024, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for bexobrutideg for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia (WM) after at least two lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. Status of Zelebrudomide: We are currently conducting a Phase 1a/1b dose-escalation and cohort expansion study of zelebrudomide in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. We previously initiated Phase 1b expansion cohorts for patients with relapsed CLL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Enrollment was paused in 2023 due to a partial clinical hold stemming from a manufacturing change designed to produce a chirally controlled form of zelebrudomide. Enrollment of new patients in this clinical trial recommenced in August 2024 following resolution of the partial hold by the FDA. Dose escalation with the new drug form is ongoing with a focus on patients with aggressive forms of B-cell lymphoma, such as DLBCL and MCL. In addition to our BTK degrader portfolio, we are also advancing a novel immune-oncology inhibitor of the E3 ligase CBL-B. CBL-B is a RING-type E3 ligase that regulates the activation of multiple immune cell types including T cells and NK cells through protein degradation. NX-1607 is an orally bioavailable inhibitor of CBL-B that has the potential to reduce T cell anergy and promote anti-cancer immune cell activity. NX-1607 is currently being explored in a variety of solid tumor indications. Status of NX-1607: We are currently conducting a Phase 1a/1b dose-escalation and cohort expansion study of NX-1607 in patients with a range of oncology indications. This study also includes a cohort within the Phase 1a dose escalation study testing NX-1607 in combination with paclitaxel, a taxane chemotherapy commonly used across a range of relapsed and refractory solid tumor indications. In 2022, NX-1607 was awarded an Innovation Passport from the United Kingdom (UK) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to accelerate time to market and facilitate patient access to novel drugs to treat serious and life-threatening diseases. 5 Preclinical Pipeline In addition to our clinical stage drug candidates, we are advancing multiple preclinical-stage programs within our protein degradation portfolio, both on our own and with partners, by developing new targeted protein degraders and degrader antibody conjugates for several therapeutic indications that currently lack treatment options or where current therapies are ineffective. These existing and future programs have the potential to provide patients with better options in therapeutic indications with significant unmet needs, including cancer, inflammation, autoimmunity and other challenging therapeutic areas. We have entered into several revenue generating collaborations with large biopharmaceutical companies, including Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer, to leverage our DEL-AI platform for drug discovery. As of November 30, 2025, we have received a total of $482.0 million in non-dilutive financing from our collaborators, and we are eligible to receive up to $6.1 billion in potential future fees and milestone payments, as well as royalties on future product sales. We retain certain options for co-development, co-commercialization and profit sharing in the United States for multiple drug candidates pursuant to these collaborations. Corporate Strategy Our strategy is to discover and develop breakthrough therapies for patients with significant unmet clinical need by developing highly differentiated degrader-based medicines that alter or remove disease-causing or disease-associated biological targets that to date have been ineffectively drugged or have been considered undruggable with existing modalities. The key elements of our strategy are to: • Advance our lead program, bexobrutideg, into late-stage clinical development in CLL and potentially other B-cell malignancies. Enrollment is ongoing in our Phase 2 clinical trial of bexobrutideg in adults with relapsed or refractory CLL. In 2026, we intend to commence enrollment of a suite of additional trials designed to support the potential future registration of the drug in multiple regulatory jurisdictions. We plan to leverage the Fast Track designation from the FDA in CLL and WM as well as the PRIME designation from the EMA to accelerate the clinical development and registrational path for bexobrutideg in oncology. • Explore the therapeutic applications of bexobrutideg, for the treatment of patients with diseases caused by inflammation and autoimmunity. BTK mediates signaling downstream of the B-cell receptor (BCR), toll-like receptors (TLRs), and Fc receptors (FcRs), making it an attractive therapeutic target in antibody-mediated autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Targeting BTK can reduce the production of new antibodies and mitigate inflammation induced by a variety of inflammatory signals, addressing key challenges in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. We believe that bexobrutideg may offer unique advantages over currently available BTK inhibitors in these disease indications by addressing both the enzymatic and scaffold activities of BTK, which are key to its function. In 2025, we expanded the current Phase 1b trial in patients with CLL to include patients who are also suffering from immune-mediated cytopenias such as anemia, a common co-morbidity associated with CLL. In 2026, we may further explore the utility of bexobrutideg in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases with a separate clinical program which will require an IND with a separate division at the FDA. • Continue development of zelebrudomide through dose escalation with a focus on aggressive lymphomas including MCL and DLBCL. Enrollment of new patients in our Phase 1a/1b clinical trial of NX-2127 has continued in adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. In 2026, we expect to define doses to enable a Phase 1b cohort expansion. • Continue development of NX-1607 through dose escalation in a range of solid tumor indications. Enrollment is ongoing in our Phase 1a/1b trial for NX-1607 in adults with multiple solid tumor types. In 2025, we continued dose escalation and expect to define doses and potential indications to enable a Phase 1b cohort expansion in 2026. 6 • Advance our portfolio of preclinical programs to generate development candidates and license agreements for our partnered pipeline. Our partnership efforts are focused on the advancement of a robust and sustainable pipeline in collaboration with our partners Gilead, Sanofi, and Pfizer. In our more mature partnerships with Gilead and Sanofi, multiple disclosed and undisclosed programs are advancing through lead optimization, IND-enablement and Phase 1 clinical studies. In March 2023, Gilead licensed our IRAK4 TPD program under the collaboration, and in April 2025 we announced FDA clearance of an IND for GS-6791/NX-0479 a novel IRAK4 degrader for inflammatory conditions. In addition, in March of 2024, Gilead extended the research term of multiple TPD programs. In April 2024, Sanofi extended its research term for a STAT6 targeted protein degrader and in June 2025 licensed a development candidate, NX-3911, and commenced IND enabling studies. In addition, Sanofi licensed a second program in May 2025 for an undisclosed target. In our partnership with Pfizer, which was announced in September 2023 under an agreement with Seagen, Inc., we have achieved three preclinical milestones to date, qualifying for $15.0 million in milestone payments. We expect to earn multiple additional preclinical and clinical milestones across our three active partnerships in 2026, which may allow us to secure additional license and development candidate events in 2026 and subsequent years. • Advance our proprietary portfolio of preclinical programs toward additional INDs. The leading edge of our proprietary preclinical portfolio includes our pan-mutant BRAF program, which is designed to specifically target and degrade multiple mutant forms of the BRAF protein for the treatment of solid tumors including melanoma, colorectal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Lead compounds from this program show potency against the most common class I V600E BRAF mutation, but also potently degrade a broad spectrum of other BRAF driver mutations including those characterized as class II or III, all while sparing wild-type BRAF activity. The series of mutant BRAF degrader compounds has been optimized for oral bioavailability and CNS exposure, a profile that is critical in the setting of relapsed BRAF-driven disease. We believe our degraders will be clinically advantageous over existing therapies based on in vivo preclinical models that show improved potency against clinically relevant BRAF mutations and superior efficacy compared to other clinical and preclinical BRAF and RAF agents. Our BRAF degraders are likely to provide a greater therapeutic window compared to existing BRAF agents because they avoid paradoxical pathway activation while preserving normal wild-type BRAF function. We believe that a pan-mutant BRAF degrader will provide more sustained MAPK pathway suppression through its catalytic mechanism of action with the potential to target relapsed and refractory BRAF-mutant positive class I patient populations as well as class II and III BRAF patients for which there exists no approved BRAF therapies. In addition to targeted protein degraders of mutant BRAF, we are advancing multiple other proprietary programs targeting mutant proteins or other disease-drivers that are currently at various stages of preclinical discovery from DNA-encoded library screening to lead optimization and development candidate nomination. • Build a leading platform for discovery of degrader antibody conjugates. DACs combine the selective and potent catalytic activity of targeted protein degraders with the cell- and tissue-specific delivery capabilities of antibodies. DACs represent the next generation of antibody drug conjugate technology that is designed to allow for the application of uniquely targeted payloads that can deliver more precise drug action while also providing multiple layers of cellular and molecular selectivity to potentially achieve both enhanced safety and improved efficacy. As part of our strategy to accelerate DAC discovery and demonstrate value, we have partnered with Pfizer, the leading pharmaceutical company in the antibody drug conjugate space, to advance this cutting-edge modality. By combining Nurix’s experience in machine learning, automated chemistry and targeted protein degraders with Pfizer’s expertise in antibody conjugate design, optimization and development, we believe we can achieve technical synergies that could allow us to redefine the application of antibody conjugates for not only oncology but also non-oncology indications. 7 • Grow our proprietary pipeline by expanding the capabilities of our DEL-AI platform. Targeted protein degradation is rapidly becoming the therapeutic modality of choice for an increasing list of pharmaceutical targets. To unlock the full potential of TPD, it is essential to have ready access to chemical starting points for biological pathways and targets that historically have been considered undruggable but now are rendered tractable by this more versatile approach. We believe we are uniquely positioned to identify novel chemical starting points to undruggable proteins and ligases. We have developed a suite of AI tools applicable across the breadth of our technical workflows, but with a specific focus on prospective ligand discovery informed by our years of accumulated DEL screening data and know-how. Using our SP3-enriched, proprietary DNA-encoded libraries and complementary E3 ligase-enriched DEL screening data, we have created a leading AI-powered platform which is designed to quickly generate multiple potential starting points for degrader drugs, thereby opening access to hundreds of unprecedented drug targets and target families. Further, the predictive power of this platform extends our drug development capabilities into a broadening range of induced proximity modalities including novel molecular glue degraders and protein stabilizers. Our DEL-AI platform can reduce reliance on serial wet-lab protein chemistry and screening efforts on challenging targets and instead can provide nearly instant access to drug-like and selective DEL binders to potentially any target or target class. By employing advanced machine learning models informed by empirical degrader assay datasets that we have amassed, which include a compendium of in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic readouts from tens of thousands of targeted protein degrader compounds, we have the ability to reduce the number of design-make-test cycles in our optimization campaigns, eliminate optimization bottlenecks, and shorten the overall project timelines required to achieve desired TPD target product profiles. We plan to continue to invest in and leverage our purpose-built machine learning capabilities and DEL-AI research engine, which we believe will enable us to enhance our position as a leader in degrader drug discovery and deliver a robust and sustainable drug pipeline. • Explore additional strategic collaborations to maximize the commercial potential of our existing pipeline assets as well as our DEL-AI and DAC platforms. As of November 30, 2025, we have received a total of $482.0 million in non-dilutive funding from our collaborations, which has enabled us to invest in our own research and development activities. Under our Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer collaborations, we have the potential to receive up to $6.1 billion in future fees and milestone payments, as well as royalties on future sales, and we retain certain options for co-development, co-commercialization and profit sharing in the United States for multiple drug candidates. We currently retain worldwide development and commercialization rights to our BTK and CBL-B clinical portfolios as well as numerous preclinical-stage projects, including our BRAF program. We intend to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company by building a targeted sales force in the United States and potentially other countries to support the commercialization of our approved drug candidates. In addition, we plan to selectively pursue technology collaborations and commercialization partnerships with partners whose capabilities complement our own, while retaining significant commercial rights in key geographic territories. 8 Our Clinical Programs BTK’s role in B-cell malignancy BTK is a key component of the B-cell receptor signaling pathway and has been clinically validated as a target in the treatment of B-cell malignancies, most notably in CLL but also in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). It is estimated that in 2024, in the United States, over 20,000 patients were diagnosed with CLL and over 80,000 patients were diagnosed with NHLs. Approximately 85% of NHLs are a result of B-cell malignancies. The natural progression of NHL varies widely and takes multiple forms, ranging from aggressive subtypes such as DLBCL, to more indolent forms such as follicular lymphoma (FL). Background on BTK inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs for B-cell malignancies The first generation BTK inhibitor Imbruvica, or ibrutinib, is approved for the treatment of CLL, WM and chronic graft versus host disease. Second generation BTK inhibitors include Calquence, or acalabrutinib, which is approved for use in CLL and MCL, and Brukinsa, or zanubrutinib, which is approved for use in CLL, MCL, WM and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). These BTK inhibitors bind covalently to cysteine C481 of the BTK protein and irreversibly inhibit BTK; however, all have some off-target binding to other kinases, which leads to unwanted side effects. In addition, acquired resistance, most commonly through mutations in C481, may limit the long-term efficacy of first and second generation covalent BTK inhibitors. A number of noncovalent BTK inhibitors are currently being investigated in clinical trials as potential therapies for patients with relapsed and refractory disease, including Jaypirca, or pirtobrutinib, which was recently approved for use in CLL and MCL. However, noncovalent inhibitors are also subject to acquired resistance, and treatment with such agents has led to the discovery of a broad range of new resistance mutations. Based on reported sales to date, we estimate that sales of BTK inhibitors were approximately $10.6 billion in 2024. BTK degraders possess several unique properties that offer potential advantages over inhibitors: • Addresses scaffold function of BTK . Removal of the BTK protein rather than inactivating the kinase domain addresses the scaffolding activity of BTK, more completely eliminating the signaling activity of both wild-type and mutant forms of BTK. • Address BTK inhibitor resistance mutations through event-driven pharmacology. BTK degraders do not require strong and prolonged binding to BTK to trigger degradation, which increases the ability of degraders to act on mutated BTK and may decrease the probability of forming new resistance mutations. • Catalytic activity . A single degrader molecule is able to trigger degradation of thousands of BTK target proteins sequentially without the need to be constantly bound to the target. We believe that targeted protein degradation of BTK may be a superior approach to existing covalent or noncovalent BTK inhibitors as well as in the setting of resistance mutations to both covalent and noncovalent inhibitors. Immunomodulatory drugs, including Revlimid, or lenalidomide, and Pomalyst, or pomalidomide, are analogs of Thalomid, or thalidomide. These drugs possess several anti-tumor properties, including anti-angiogenic and anti-proliferative effects. They also have multiple effects on the immune system, including the enhancement of T-cell mediated and NK-cell mediated immunity. Revlimid, the market leader in this class by global sales, was first approved in 2006 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. In May 2019, Revlimid in combination with Rituxan received a supplemental indication approval for previously treated FL, MZL and MCL, and in August 2020, Revlimid in combination with Monjuvi received a supplemental indication in DLBCL, thus validating the importance of this drug class in these indications. Based on reported sales to date, global sales of this drug class, including Revlimid and Pomalyst, peaked in 2021 at approximately $16.2 billion, prior to the introduction of generic competition. Subsequent to their approval and successful commercialization, studies demonstrated that these immunomodulatory drugs exert their therapeutic effect by triggering the degradation of specific proteins including Ikaros and Aiolos through the E3 ligase activity of cereblon, and hence were identified retrospectively as the first approved drugs to harness the activity an E3 ligase as a molecular glue. 9 Recently published studies have reported early clinical data showing that combining a BTK inhibitor with an immunomodulatory drug may have the potential to augment clinical activity of certain standard of care agents in some hematologic malignancies such as non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) DLBCL. Further, earlier scientific publications have described synthetic lethality in a DLBCL cell line treated with both ibrutinib and lenalidomide. By targeting both BTK and cereblon-mediated immunomodulatory pathways simultaneously, it is believed that the survival mechanisms driven by accumulated mutations within certain cancers can be overcome, thereby preventing escape and disease relapse. This may be especially effective if each pathway not only has different functions but also shares certain critical components. One possible intersection pathway is the suppression of interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4), a member of a family of transcription factors leading to a cell-lethal increase in interferon production. The early clinical study referenced above was particularly noteworthy because, prior to that study, few combinations have produced promising results in DLBCL. The findings suggest that simultaneous degradation of BTK combined with cereblon-mediated immunomodulatory activity by a single agent could produce an additive or synergistic effect in certain B-cell malignancies. Potential advantages of BTK degraders We have conducted extensive preclinical studies of our two clinical stage BTK degraders. We have demonstrated that both bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide can induce BTK degradation and inhibit tumor growth with oral administration in xenograft mouse models implanted with both wild-type and ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cell lines. We have also demonstrated the ability of both bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide to degrade BTK in circulating B cells of non-human primates and in B-cell lymphoma patients following once daily oral dosing in ongoing Phase 1 trials. We have specifically designed bexobrutideg to degrade BTK with limited or no degradation of cereblon neosubstrates. We have designed zelebrudomide as a dual degrader of BTK and the cereblon neosubstrates Ikaros and Aiolos, for potential applications in indications where adding immunomodulatory activity may be beneficial. 10 We have optimized bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide to be able to degrade both wild-type BTK and the C481S variant of BTK that has been identified as the most common mutation in patients who have become resistant to ibrutinib therapy over time. Both agents have subsequently demonstrated the ability to degrade additional mutant variants of BTK associated with resistance to BTK inhibitors including L528W, T474I, M437R and V416L. In our model of DLBCL cell line (TM8) harboring the most common resistance mutations, both bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide retained activity against all of the common clinical BTK inhibitor resistance mutations, while all tested inhibitors demonstrated a major decrease in activity against at least one of these prevalent mutations. The figure below shows a heat map of the relative activity of bexobrutideg compared to a panel of both covalent and non-covalent BTK inhibitors. Clinical development studies for bexobrutideg We are studying the pharmacology, safety, and clinical activity of bexobrutideg in multiple subtypes of relapsed and refractory B-cell malignancies, including those in which ibrutinib has shown only modest effects or is ineffective, as in the case of CLL patients with BTK inhibitor resistance mutations. 11 As illustrated in the diagram below, we are conducting a Phase 1a/1b dose-escalation and cohort expansion study of bexobrutideg in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL and NHL. We completed enrollment in the Phase 1a portion and commenced the Phase 1b portion of the trial in the second half of 2024 randomized between two once daily (QD) doses of 200 mg and 600 mg in patients with CLL. Additional cohorts of patients with CLL, MZL, FL, and WM were initiated at the 600mg QD dose. The patients in the study represent a heavily pre-treated population with a variety of previous treatments. Some patients also have mutations associated with BTK inhibitor resistance and other high risk molecular and clinical features. The study is currently enrolling in the United States, the UK, and in selected sites in Europe. Bexobrutideg Phase 1 Clinical Study Design Bexobrutideg Phase 1a clinical findings in chronic lymphocytic leukemia Clinical findings from the bexobrutideg Phase 1a trial were presented at the 67th American Society of Hematology annual meeting in December 2025 (ASH 2025). These results included safety findings from a total of 126 CLL/SLL patients treated at all doses and 70 CLL/SLL patients treated at the 600mg dose, as of the September 19, 2025 data cut, and included efficacy findings from among the 47 CLL response evaluable patients enrolled in the Phase 1a at that time. Bexobrutideg was well tolerated across all doses evaluated, and safety findings in the CLL/SLL cohort were consistent with the overall population as well as previous safety analyses (see table below). 12 Bexobrutideg Comparable AE Profile for Patients Overall and at the 600mg Dose Selected per Project Optimus a Purpura/contusion includes episodes of contusion or purpura; b Aggregate of ‘neutrophil count decreased’ or ‘neutropenia’; c Fatigue was transient; d Aggregate of ‘thrombocytopenia’ and ‘platelet count decreased’; e Aggregate of ‘rash’ and ‘rash maculopapular’ and ‘rash pustular’; f Aggregate of ‘COVID-19’ and ‘COVID-19 pneumonia’ AE , adverse event; RP2D , recommended Phase 2 dose; TEAE , treatment-emergent adverse event Among the efficacy evaluable patients with CLL/SLL in the Phase 1a portion of the study (n=47), bexobrutideg treatment resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of 83.0% across all doses tested including two complete responses (4.3%), with the majority of responses occurring at the first assessment (Week 8). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 22.1 months across all doses tested (50-600 mg, see tables below). Responses were observed across all populations regardless of prior treatment, baseline mutations, high-risk molecular features, or central nervous system (CNS) involvement. This includes patients with baseline BTK mutations associated with treatment resistance to both covalent and non-covalent BTK inhibitors. Robust BTK degradation was observed in all patients, including those with baseline BTK mutations. Bexobrutideg Phase 1a Overall Response Assessment a Patients who were treated with bexobrutideg having ≥1 post-baseline disease assessment or documented clinical PD. b Objective response rate was evaluated using iwCLL criteria and included CR + PR + PR-L. c Kaplan-Meier estimate Emerging data from the randomized Phase 1b cohorts points to higher ORR and longer progression free survival at the 600 mg RP2D compared to the 200 mg dose. Preliminary Efficacy in Phase 1b Randomized Cohort of 200mg vs. 600mg 13 a Objective response rate includes CR + nPR + PR + PR-L. CI , confidence interval; ORR , objective response rate; PFS progression free survival Bexobrutideg Pivotal Phase 2 commencement In October 2025, enrollment was initiated in the DAYBreak CLL-201 Phase 2 study (NCT07221500), evaluating bexobrutideg at the 600 mg recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and designed to support accelerated approval of bexobrutideg in triple-exposed CLL/SLL patients (post cBTKi, ncBTKi and BCL-2i). DAYBreak Phase 2 Study Designed to Support Accelerated Approval r/r CLL , relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia; ORR , objective response rate; iwCLL , International Workshop on CLL; IRC , Independent Review Committee; QD ,once daily; SLL , small lymphocytic lymphoma; cBTKi , covalent BTK inhibitor; ncBTKi , non-covalent BTK inhibitor; BCL-2i , BCL-2 inhibitor Bexobrutideg Phase 1 clinical findings in Waldenström macroglobulinemia Clinical findings from the bexobrutideg Phase 1 trial in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) were also presented at the 67th American Society of Hematology annual meeting in December 2025 (ASH 2025). These results, also from the September 19, 2025 data cut, included the baseline characteristics of the 31 patients with WM enrolled across both the Phase 1a and Phase 1b portions of the trial, primary efficacy analysis in all response-evaluable patients, and duration on study for all 31 patients. Among the 28 patients who were evaluable for response the ORR was 75.0% and for 23 patients with two or more response assessments the ORR was 82.6%. A steady reduction in IgM levels occurred in most patients starting from the first IgM assessment (four weeks) which continued to deepen at eight weeks and beyond. The median duration of response was not reached with 14 patients continuing on treatment for more than six months. Clinical development of zelebrudomide We are studying the pharmacology, safety and clinical activity of zelebrudomide in multiple subtypes of relapsed and refractory B‑cell malignancies, including CLL, DLBCL, MCL, MZL and FL. We plan to focus development in NHL indications where zelebrudomide shows evidence of compelling clinical activity and where there is high unmet need. 14 The Phase 1a/1b dose escalation and cohort expansion study was initiated in 2021. Enrollment was paused in the fourth quarter of 2023 due to a partial clinical hold stemming from a manufacturing change designed to produce a chirally controlled form of zelebrudomide. Enrollment of new patients in the zelebrudomide clinical trial recommenced in August 2024, following resolution of the partial hold by the FDA. Dose escalation with the new drug form is ongoing with a focus on patients with aggressive forms of B-cell lymphoma. As illustrated in the diagram below, the Phase 1a/1b trial is currently evaluating doses of the new drug product ranging from 100 mg to 450 mg, with potential expansion cohorts for patients with DLBCL, MCL, FL, MZL, and WM. Patients enrolled in the clinical study who are deriving clinical benefit on the original drug product may continue to receive treatment in accordance with the ongoing study protocol, however all new patients are being treated with the new drug product. Zelebrudomide Phase 1 Study Design a Planned number of evaluable patients (i.e., meeting DLT evaluability criteria); b Planned number of evaluable patients (i.e., meeting efficacy evaluability criteria) CLL , chronic lymphocytic leukemia; DLBCL , diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DLT , dose-limiting toxicity; FL , follicular lymphoma; MCL , mantle cell lymphoma; MTD , maximum tolerated dose; MZL , marginal zone lymphoma; PD , pharmacodynamics; PK , pharmacokinetics; PCNSL , primary central nervous system lymphoma; SLL , small lymphocytic lymphoma; WM , Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia Zelebrudomide Clinical findings Positive data from the zelebrudomide clinical study was presented at the 65th ASH annual meeting in December 2023 (ASH 2023) and ASH 2024, in patients with NHL and CLL, confirming a manageable safety profile that is consistent with previous reports for BTK-targeted and immunomodulatory therapies. BTK degradation was demonstrated at all dose levels in patient samples, as shown in the figure below. Source: Danilov et al., ASH 2023, Poster #4463 15 Efficacy findings showed promising clinical activity: For patients with NHL, encouraging and durable responses were observed, including two complete responses and two partial responses, each at week eight. For patients with CLL, despite a median of five prior lines of treatment and BTK mutations present in 36% of patients, zelebrudomide treatment resulted in an objective overall response rate of 40.7%, including partial responses in 11 patients, with treatment ongoing in 13 patients. Tumor shrinkage and clinical responses were observed in patients regardless of prior lines of therapy or baseline BTK mutations. Zelebrudomide NHL efficacy Zelebrudomide CLL efficacy Source: Danilov et al, ASH 2023, Poster #4463 16 Background on CBL-B as a regulator of T-cell activation T cells are central to the cell-mediated adaptive immune response. Their activation, expansion, and function require carefully balanced positive and negative feedback mechanisms at each step. Multiple factors impair effective anti-tumor responses, including insufficient tumor antigen expression, defective antigen presentation, and the presence of inhibitory signals (e.g., immune checkpoints, suppressive factors, or T-cell exhaustion). CBL-B is an E3 ubiquitin ligase expressed in multiple immune cell lineages, where it negatively regulates T-cell activation and limits the function of NK cells, B cells, and dendritic cells. By promoting T-cell exhaustion, anergy, and cell death, CBL-B downregulates immune responses. CBL-B is highly expressed in human CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, with its expression tightly regulated by co-stimulatory (CD28) and inhibitory (CTLA-4) signals. Typically, T cells require two signals for activation: (1) TCR recognition of antigen–MHC complexes and (2) co-stimulatory signals. CBL-B influences the TCR pathway by requiring adequate co-stimulation for a full immune response. Accordingly, CBL-B–deficient T cells have reduced activation thresholds and resist T-cell anergy, displaying higher proliferation rates and elevated cytokine production (e.g., IL-2). However, inhibiting CBL-B alone does not activate T cells in the absence of TCR engagement, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic target to enhance anti-tumor immunity without indiscriminate T-cell activation. Mechanism of action of NX-1607, an orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of the E3 ligase CBL-B NX-1607: An Oral CBL-B Inhibitor for Immuno-Oncology NX-1607 is an investigational, orally bioavailable, and potent CBL-B inhibitor that enhances T-cell-mediated anti-tumor responses. In vitro studies demonstrated that NX-1607 treatment resulted in a dose-dependent increase in T-cell activation in TCR-stimulated primary human T cells in the presence and, to a lesser extent, in the absence of CD28 co-stimulation, a potential advantage in a suppressive tumor microenvironment. NX-1607 does not appear to activate T cells in the absence of TCR engagement. Clinical development of NX-1607 We are studying the pharmacology, safety and clinical activity of single-agent NX-1607 and have studied the combination of NX-1607 with taxane chemotherapy in multiple solid tumor indications. The solid tumors selected for this initial assessment include three different immune phenotypes: checkpoint-resistant tumors, tumors with an immunosuppressive microenvironment and tumors that are poorly immunogenic. We believe that there is a scientific rationale for the role of CBL-B inhibition in each of these immune phenotypes. As illustrated in the diagram below, we are conducting a Phase 1a/1b dose-escalation and cohort expansion study of NX-1607 in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors and lymphoma. We are currently enrolling patients in the Phase 1a dose escalation portion of the monotherapy trial, which includes assessment of both once daily (QD) and twice daily (BID) dosing. We have also explored step-up dosing and the use of anti-emetic prophylaxis medication to achieve target drug levels and minimize potential gastrointestinal tolerability issues. 17 NX-1607 Phase 1a Clinical Study Design Source: ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status New Phase 1a clinical trial data for NX-1607 were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress and the 2025 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Annual Meeting, demonstrating that NX-1607 exhibited dose-dependent pharmacologic activity consistent with target engagement and immune modulation, showing clinical activity through reductions in tumor-specific biomarkers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in colorectal cancer. Notably, there was a confirmed partial response in a patient with micro-satellite stable colorectal cancer (MSS CRC), a tumor type typically unresponsive to immune checkpoint therapy. Furthermore, treatment with NX-1607 led to increased peripheral T cell activation and proliferation, significantly greater in patients with stable disease compared to those with progressive disease, indicating active T-cell receptor engagement and immune responsiveness. NX-1607 demonstrated on-target peripheral immune activation, suggesting its potential as an active immune-oncology agent with a unique mechanism distinct from PD-1/PD-L1 therapies. The data support the initiation of expansion cohorts at the two highest doses tested for both monotherapy and combination treatments in advanced solid tumors. NX-1607 Demonstrates a Disease Control Rate of 49.3% Across Doses and Tumor Types 18 Our DEL-AI Platform and Research Engine In disease settings where existing treatments are limited by suboptimal efficacy, safety, or rapid mutational resistance, or in settings that lack treatment options because the relevant disease drivers are not druggable by conventional means, we believe targeted protein degradation represents a promising treatment paradigm with the potential to greatly expand the number of pharmaceutically tractable biological disease targets and thereby significantly improve patient care. Early disclosures from an ever-increasing number of TPD clinical trials highlight the broad therapeutic potential of harnessing E3 ligases to promote targeted protein degradation of both established and unprecedented therapeutic targets. Using our DEL-AI research engine, we have identified many novel small molecule starting points and have progressed their development into differentiated therapies for patients lacking treatment options. Leveraging the wealth of chemical information that we have generated against hundreds of disease targets and E3 ligase proteins using our customized collection of 5 billion unique DEL compounds along with the knowledge we have accumulated by employing empirical degrader discovery workflows, we have constructed a powerful suite of machine learning models and tools that can enable us to predict proprietary binders for virtually any disease-relevant protein, including challenging targets like E3 ligases and transcription factors, and rapidly translate those binders into effective degrader drugs for a growing set of high value protein targets and target families. Our DEL-AI research engine is scalable and disease/target agnostic, providing us with the ability to support not only our wholly owned pipeline but also current and potential future discovery partnerships. Fundamental premise of Nurix’s drug discovery: proteins as targets in treating disease Each cell type within the body is comprised of proteins that define its biochemistry and biological function. When proteins are expressed and regulated correctly, the health of each individual cell as well as the body as a whole is maintained. However, disease can occur when normal cellular processes are dysregulated as a result of changes in protein structure, function, expression levels or pathway regulation. Factors such as genetic mutations, infection, exposure to toxins, diet and behavior can lead to dysregulation of cellular processes and, if unchecked, a disease process. The traditional approach to discovering treatments for disease has involved the development of small molecule drugs that bind to a protein’s surface and modulate its activity. These “druggable” proteins contain distinct structural features called active sites that mediate protein function which can be exploited when identifying and optimizing compounds that disrupt protein activity. However, the vast majority of the body’s proteins do not have distinct active sites that can be targeted using traditional discovery methods. Because dysregulation and disease are not restricted to these “druggable” proteins, a significant number of therapeutically relevant proteins have not been addressed by traditional small molecule drugs. In addition, many existing small molecule drugs fail to fully block protein and pathway function, leading to incomplete disease resolution or rapid drug resistance. Other modalities, including antibody- and protein-based therapies, genetic medicines and cell therapies, have emerged to attempt to address these issues but are still limited by their modes of delivery, their scalability and their therapeutic applications. 19 Harnessing the activity of E3 ligases to create a new treatment modality Normal cellular physiology requires highly orchestrated and regulated processes that operate at the level of individual proteins. The ability of proteins to respond to stimuli quickly and in a coordinated fashion requires protein function to be readily controllable. One of the most exquisitely ordered biochemical systems governing cellular protein activity is the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS). A key class of enzymes within the UPS are E3 ligases which mediate this process with a high degree of specificity by recognizing individual proteins and catalyzing the attachment of ubiquitin protein tags to their surface. Proteins marked with chains of ubiquitin are then shuttled to the proteasome for degradation and removal from the cell. In addition to protein degradation, E3 ligases also mediate other functions such as protein localization, receptor internalization, protein signaling and protein quality control. There are over 600 E3 ligases encoded within the human genome, representing more than 5% of genes. The prevalence of the E3 ligase class of enzymes reflects the diversity of their physiological roles and biological significance and may allow for the creation of a wide spectrum of ligase-targeted therapeutics. Controlling protein levels through small molecule therapeutics targeting E3 ligases Advances in our understanding of the UPS suggest broad potential for the development of new therapies that co-opt E3 ligases in the context of diseases such as cancer and autoimmune disorders. An example are the so-called immunomodulatory drugs, Revlimid (lenalidomide) and Pomalyst (pomalidomide), which are approved cancer drugs. These drugs exert their therapeutic effects by binding to the E3 ligase cereblon and redirecting its activity toward proteins it would not normally degrade, known as neosubstrates, such as Ikaros and Aiolos (also known as IKZF1 and IKZF3), transcription factors regulating immune cell function. Elucidation of this mechanism led to the recognition that pharmacological control of E3 ligase activity could more generally represent a promising new paradigm for small molecule drug action. This idea has since translated into the development of a growing number of clinical stage targeted protein degraders, which we believe have significant therapeutic potential. In addition, we believe the largely unexplored area of inhibiting E3 ligases directly to modulate the levels of their native substrate proteins and potentially enhance pathway signaling may also represent a promising therapeutic approach. • Harnessing E3 ligases to degrade pharmaceutically relevant proteins. Targeted protein degradation harnesses the natural activity of ligases to target novel neosubstrates, thereby removing specific proteins from the cell. Targeted protein degradation is accomplished by using a small molecule capable of creating a potent interaction between an E3 ligase and a Protein of Interest (POI) such that the E3 ligase can covalently label the POI with a ubiquitin chain, the cellular signal for proteasome-mediated destruction. Unlike traditional small molecule inhibition which requires prolonged active site occupancy, targeted protein degradation requires only a brief interaction with a POI, through event-driven pharmacology, allowing one degrader molecule to induce the degradation of hundreds to thousands of copies of the protein target in a catalytic fashion, thereby enabling complete elimination of a protein target and all of its associated functionality. Further, since the effect is mediated through binding rather than through enzymatic inhibition, proteins lacking enzymatic activity are targetable, greatly expanding the spectrum of both proteins and diseases amenable to small molecule therapeutic intervention . Some of the key advantages of targeted protein degradation over existing modalities are: • Degraders can eliminate all of a protein’s functionality. Removing a protein from the cell by targeting it for proteasomal destruction eliminates all of a protein’s functionality, including scaffolding or structural functions, in contrast to small molecule inhibitors that only block enzymatic function. • Degraders can access an expanded range of target space. Conventional small molecule drug development is limited to protein classes, typically enzymes, that exhibit biochemical activities that can be reliably measured and inhibited through the binding of a compound to the target’s active site. In contrast, proteasomal degradation of a target protein is accomplished by inducing brief proximity of the target protein to an E3 ligase, a process that is agnostic to target structure and function. • Degraders show differentiated pharmacology. TPDs act catalytically to eliminate their corresponding target proteins from a cell, requiring just a few degrader molecules to eliminate thousands of protein molecules and forcing the cell to resynthesize the target protein to restore functionality. This creates a unique degrader pharmacokinetics and degrader pharmacodynamics, greatly reducing the amplitude and duration of drug exposure required to maintain target suppression as compared to traditional small molecule inhibitors. • Degraders are mutationally tolerant. Minor changes in the amino acid sequence of a target protein, as a consequence of somatic or inhibitor-selected resistance mutations, do not necessarily preclude degrader activity, even in cases where the mutations occur within the degrader binding site. This desirable property relates to the event-driven pharmacology of degraders and is in stark contrast to the propensity of amino acid point mutations to disrupt the in vivo activity and efficacy of inhibitor drugs. 20 • Degraders can penetrate the CNS. Small molecule drugs and, most prominently beyond-the-rule-of-five compounds rarely achieve potent CNS exposure or activity. However, TPDs are increasingly cited for their ability to penetrate and show pharmacology in the CNS, in part due to the minimal plasma and cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) exposure required for these catalytic agents to exhibit target coverage. • Inhibiting E3 ligases to control pathway activation. By inhibiting the function of E3 ligases it is possible to rapidly increase the levels of specific protein substrates to control biological pathways. Raising the levels of distinct sets of proteins within a single biological pathway could be a powerful approach to blocking pathological processes and restoring normal physiology. While there is enthusiasm in the scientific community around the therapeutic potential of E3 ligase inhibition, the discovery of such inhibitors has been impeded by the limited understanding of this biochemically and structurally complex class of proteins and the limited availability of chemical matter for this historically intractable protein class. We believe that co-opting E3 ligase functionality to effect pharmaceutical control of critical disease-associated proteins represents a powerful therapeutic frontier that retains the favorable attributes of small molecule treatment modalities while addressing some major limitations. In addition to the points above, we believe other key differentiating attributes of our treatment modality include: • Expansive therapeutic potential . The UPS and its associated E3 ligases function across the majority of cell types and organ systems, making it possible to modulate virtually any protein of interest for a wide range of diseases. • Deliverable and tunable . Oral delivery of small molecule compounds lends itself to broad medical applicability in a range of patient populations with delivery that may be readily calibrated through dosing schedule and quantity. • Ease of manufacturing . Development and manufacturing of small molecules utilizes established, cost-efficient processes that are readily scalable. Key attributes and applications of our DEL-AI platform and research engine Our approach to pharmaceutical development relies on harnessing the innate specificity and the natural function of the UPS to regulate the cellular proteome for therapeutic effect. Until recently, development of therapies that co-opt E3 ligases and other UPS effectors has been limited by the lack of available chemical matter for this class of proteins, as well as by the relative lack of biochemical, biological and mechanistic understanding of these critical protein families. Through our focused efforts and investment over the past several years, we have developed proprietary tools, in-depth knowledge and a wealth of chemical matter to enable the broader use of E3 ligases in drug discovery. In addition, we have further expanded our reach by leveraging our E3 ligase knowledge base using purpose-built machine learning to prospectively access even more chemical matter capable of engaging this highly sought-after therapeutic target class. 21 Significant investments in E3 ligase protein sciences and DEL methodology developments along with a liberal application of our DEL resource across hundreds of proprietary and partnered POIs has allowed us to generate large, high-quality datasets predominantly representing target classes relevant to protein degradation. Using advanced machine learning techniques trained on our DEL data compendium, we have developed powerful tools that can prospectively predict ligands to an arbitrarily large number of protein targets. This technology has greatly broadened the set of proteins ligandable by our methodologies, both in scope and in scale. As shown below, these capabilities and insights have allowed us to develop DEL-AI, a powerful technology to identify and advance novel drug candidates. Our DEL-AI research engine is a fully integrated, machine-learning powered drug discovery engine that leverages large empirical DEL and TPD datasets to write the rulebook of degrader drug design. DEL technology taps enormous chemical space to overcome “druggability” limits Our DEL compound collection comprises several billion individually DNA-labeled drug-like small molecules in contrast to conventional screening collections which contain less than a few million untagged compounds. This increased scale and traceability provides the necessary chemical diversity to identify chemical starting points for a broad set of biological targets, including many of the more challenging protein families that have been considered undruggable by other approaches. DEL technology evaluates each library compound simultaneously in a single experiment, enabling a more accurate biophysical assessment of compound behavior which translates into higher fidelity hit finding. In addition, because DEL drug discovery is performed by measuring compound binding rather than biochemical activity, it can be applied to almost any protein, most notably to proteins considered intractable because enzymatic screening assays are lacking or not feasible. Further, the relative ease with which binding screens can be performed and interpreted provides sufficient flexibility to allow evaluation of structurally complicated proteins like transcription factors and E3 ligases, which display distinct conformations and activity states that are rarely accessible in conventional biochemical screening assays. Lastly, a chemical linker attaches each DEL compound to a strand of DNA that functions as a barcode defining its unique chemical structure and allowing drug starting points to be easily identified through DNA sequencing. DEL’s built-in chemical linker is also an advantage in the context of TPD design, as it biases toward the discovery of binders that tolerate linker attachment, a critical prerequisite for bifunctional degrader construction. 22 Our DEL technology was designed to identify ligands to drug the undrugged Our methods rely on proprietary DELs we have specifically engineered to enable access to selective binders for a diverse group of target protein classes, including transcription factors, E3 ligases, disease-specific mutant proteins including fusions, as well as many other targets that have not previously been drugged. Key features of our DEL platform include: • Custom-synthesized DELs. Our libraries have been designed to incorporate hundreds of custom-synthesized chemical scaffolds that impart desirable, drug-like chemical properties like solubility into each library compound in a manner that cannot be achieved when building DEL collections solely from commercial inputs. The three-dimensional design of our proprietary, SP3-enriched scaffolds allows our DEL compounds to better-complement the shallow surfaces of these more difficult to drug protein types, making them ideal for hit finding screens directed against targets that have proven to be undruggable by conventional approaches. For 75% of the undruggable targets screened to date, our scaffold libraries have provided the sole source of progressible hits. Often these binders interact with previously unappreciated binding sites on the surface of the target protein, or they interact with rare or unexpected conformational states, offering new ways to potentially target disease processes specifically. Most importantly, using our collection of over 5 billion DNA-linked and readily traceable compounds in thousands of screen reactions has allowed us to amass an enormous compendium of highly ordered binding data that is directly applicable to machine learning. Design and Differentiation of the Nurix DEL Collection • Many screens, one protein target. Protein targets have many potentially ligandable surfaces and can also exist in multiple conformation states. Our approach uses comprehensive parallel screening campaigns to interrogate numerous states and surfaces of the target protein by combining multiple protein constructs with a variety of known substrates, binders, or cofactors in empirically replicated screening assays . • Proprietary data analysis and hit confirmation technologies . We have built a suite of custom analytical tools for interpretation and prioritization of our DEL binder outputs, which routinely contain thousands of productive hits. By leveraging data collected from thousands of DEL screens, we can rapidly recognize and eliminate background signal and reveal the most promising target-specific ligands. We have also developed high throughput methods for nanoscale hit resynthesis and affinity selection mass spectroscopy that allow a more comprehensive and industrialized process for rapidly confirming the best chemical starting points for future pipeline programs. Our ligase know-how enables us to address diverse therapeutic applications We have expanded the universe of E3 ligases available for therapeutic manipulation from the two predominantly used in the field, cereblon and VHL, by screening more than 100 E3 ligases to date to identify novel harnesses or molecular glues for use in TPD. We have carefully selected these E3 ligases based on their potential degradative function, level of processivity, lack of regulation, and desirable cell or tissue expression pattern. We consider the unique biological function of each ligase and the therapeutic requirements of the disease state when prioritizing discovery workflows. E3 ligases that are required for cancer cell survival are also of high interest for cancer indications to reduce the risk of intrinsic resistance to degrader action. We continue to actively grow our collection of chemical matter for E3 ligases to better tailor our TPD product profiles to our expanding range of therapeutic areas. 23 Our industrialized degrader design, synthesis and testing workflows are scaled for empirical learning • Rapid automated chemistry. Our advanced automated chemistry robotic suite allows for rapid synthesis of both binders and fully assembled degrader molecules. Application of on-resin chemistry methods allows us to achieve high reaction yields with fidelity such that we can forego purification steps and move rapidly from synthesis to cell-based testing of hundreds of degrader analogs per design cycle. This automation enables us to sample unprecedented chemical space and allows for faster design-make-test cycles, accelerating drug discovery projects. • High throughput proteomics. A key advantage of the targeted protein degradation modality in contrast to traditional small molecule inhibitor development is that the precision and selectivity of protein degradation can be measured globally in any cell type to define on- and off-target drug behavior discretely at a cellular level, something not possible for nearly any other pharmaceutical modality. This proteome-wide data is ideally suited to inform machine learning models. • Early and scaled in vivo pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bifunctional degraders. Our degrader optimization workflows employ high throughput in vivo screens for oral bioavailability which has enabled us to empirically determine the complex spectrum of property combinations that correlate with potent pharmacodynamic activity. • Structure based drug design and ternary complex modeling. Ternary complex stability, optimal ligase-to-target protein orientation, and minimal degrader molecular weight are core tenets of any TPD discovery campaign. Our workflows prioritize the empirical determination of a variety of biophysical properties and behaviors, including protein x-ray structures, ternary complex x-ray or cryo-EM structures, and an array of protein-protein and ligand-protein modeling exercises that deliver valuable datasets for informing TPD design. Cohesive integration of advanced machine learning to every aspect of our discovery process Targeted protein degradation has unlocked novel avenues for delivering effective therapies, leveraging unprecedented mechanisms of action to eliminate disease-causing proteins. These molecules involve new biology and new chemistry, necessitating extensive research along many dimensions of our drug candidates to achieve desirable profiles for our TPDs. To navigate this new paradigm in drug discovery, we have taken an empirical approach. We have invested heavily in high-throughput data generation workflows such as our 5 billion compound DEL resource as well as our automated chemistry and assay platforms. As a result, we have amassed one of the industry’s largest datasets singularly generated from experiments relevant to discovery, validation and optimization of targeted protein degradation. Our research engine harnesses our expansive, empirical data streams to write the rulebook for TPD drug design. Through the integration of high-quality data emerging from our discovery and development workflows and application of deep learning and generative design, our powerful research engine is delivering a rapidly growing portfolio of early leads and optimized drug candidates. • DEL Foundation. A foundation machine learning model built on our high-quality and high-volume DEL datasets which enables prospective binder identification for diverse POI and Ligase targets. • Degrader activity . Program-specific models trained on our proprietary degrader activity datasets to better understand and optimize degrader MOA. • Multiparameter property optimization. A suite of models tuned to predict a range of important molecular and pharmacokinetic properties in the unique chemical space occupied by TPD molecules. • Generative molecular design. An integrated infrastructure leveraging the range of DEL Foundation, Degrader Activity, and Property Optimization models within an advanced generative machine learning framework. • Harnessing our data generation pipelines with machine learning. Our investment in scalable science has created large data streams stemming from our DEL, automated chemistry, and high-throughput experimental platforms. As a result, Nurix has amassed one of the industry’s largest datasets singularly generated from experiments relevant to targeted protein degradation. Through the integration of this data spanning the range of our degrader development activities with deep learning and generative design, our researchers leverage our machine learning platform to identify and deliver novel, optimized compounds at any stage along the research pipeline. 24 Our DAC platform can drive the discovery of cell-specific targeted therapies with the potential for an increased therapeutic windows Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) are a rapidly growing modality in targeted therapy. Traditional ADCs combine the selectivity of monoclonal antibodies with the potency of broadly cytotoxic payloads to effect malignant cell killing. While this modality can be agnostic to oncogenic mechanism, the pleiotropic effects of these payloads cannot be completely controlled by delivery, and therefore often lead to dose-limiting toxicity. We believe DACs, formed by conjugating a disease- or cell-type-selective antibody to a targeted protein degrader, can overcome the limitations of traditional ADCs. First, the degrader payload of a DAC swaps the polypharmacology of a payload toxin, not all of which is required for disease control, with the potent and precise pathway blockade that can be achieved by targeted protein degradation. Second, since degraders are catalytic, delivery of just a few degrader molecules to any one cell is sufficient to catalyze complete removal of a target protein and provide prolonged pharmacodynamic effect. Third, the tissue distribution of the degrader target protein and the co-opted E3 ligase afford two additional layers of selectivity to delimit DAC activity beyond what can be achieved through antibody delivery alone, mitigating the common ADC toxicities and providing the potential for superior safety while maintaining ADC-equivalent biological potency. In comparison, other novel antibody payloads, such as enzyme inhibitors, require high levels of payload delivery to be effective. An added benefit of the DAC modality is that it expands the repertoire of biological targets and E3 ligases that would make suitable combinations to achieving disease efficacy through TPD. This added flexibility enables us to further tap the potential of our DEL-AI platform to harvest a larger spectrum of Nurix’s existing chemical matter and know-how. As a proof-of-concept for the DAC approach, we conjugated one of our potent BTK degraders to B-cell targeting (anti-CD19) and non-targeting (anti-Her2) monoclonal antibodies via a diverse set of chemical linkers leveraging our existing platform capabilities. The resulting B-cell targeting anti-CD19-BTK DACs, and non-targeting anti-Her2-BTK control conjugates were tested for BTK degradation in CD19+ malignant B cells. As illustrated in the figure below, we were able to show that only the anti-CD19 DAC (blue) had comparable degradation potency to that of the unconjugated degrader, validating the power and feasibility of antigen-specific antibody-mediated delivery of the DAC approach. Collaborations and License Agreements Gilead In June 2019, we entered into a global strategic collaboration agreement with Gilead (as subsequently amended, the Gilead Agreement) to discover, develop and commercialize a pipeline of targeted protein degradation drugs for patients with cancer and other challenging diseases using our DEL-AI platform to identify novel agents that utilize E3 ligases to induce degradation of five specified drug targets. In August 2019 and September 2022, we entered into the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, respectively, to the Gilead Agreement to clarify certain language of the Gilead Agreement. In February 2024 and March 2024, as part of the existing collaboration agreement, Gilead elected to extend the five-year initial research term by two years for certain drug targets (Gilead Research Term Extension). The Gilead Research Term Extension triggered a $15.0 million payment, which we received in the second quarter of fiscal year 2024. 25 Under the Gilead Agreement, Gilead has the option to license drug candidates directed to up to five targets resulting from the collaboration and is responsible for the clinical development and commercialization of drug candidates resulting from the collaboration. We retain the option to co-develop and co-promote, under a profit share structure, up to two drug candidates in the United States, provided that we may only exercise such option once per licensed product and Gilead retains the right to veto our option selection for any one drug candidate of its choice. The collaboration excludes our current internal protein degradation programs for which we retain all rights, and also excludes our future internal programs, provided that we have distinguished future programs as excluded from the scope of the collaboration. In March 2023, Gilead exercised its option to exclusively license one target (Gilead License Option Exercise), the first development candidate resulting from the Gilead Agreement. Pursuant to the Gilead Agreement, we received a license option exercise payment of $20.0 million in April 2023 for the Gilead License Option Exercise. Over time, Gilead may elect to replace the initial drug targets with other drug targets. For drug targets that are subject to the collaboration, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to undertake a research program in accordance with a research plan agreed to by the parties and established on a target-by-target basis. We have primary responsibility under the Gilead Agreement for performing preclinical research activities (including target validation, drug discovery, identification or synthesis) pursuant to a research plan. Each party will bear its own costs in the conduct of research activities. Gilead will be responsible for any development, commercialization and manufacturing activities, unless we exercise our co-development and co-promotion option. For those programs that we exercise our option to co-develop and co-promote, we and Gilead will split U.S. development costs as well as U.S. profits and losses evenly, and we will be eligible to receive royalties on net ex-U.S. sales and reduced milestone payments. Upon signing the Gilead Agreement, Gilead paid us an upfront payment of $45.0 million, plus $3.0 million in additional fees. In addition, from the signing of the Gilead Agreement to November 30, 2025, we received payments of $47.0 million for research milestones and additional payments, $20.0 million for a license option exercise payment, $15.0 million in research term extension fees and $5.0 million for a clinical milestone payment. As of November 30, 2025, we are eligible to receive up to approximately $1.8 billion in total additional payments based on certain additional fees, payments and the successful completion of certain preclinical, clinical, development and sales milestones. We also are eligible to receive mid-single digit to low tens percentage tiered royalties on annual net sales from any commercial products directed to the optioned collaboration targets, subject to certain reductions and excluding sales in the United States of any products for which we exercise our option to co-develop and co-promote, for which the parties share profits and losses evenly. Subject to earlier expiration in certain circumstances, the Gilead Agreement expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the later of (1) the expiration of the last to expire patent with a valid claim covering the applicable licensed product in the applicable country, (2) the expiration of any regulatory exclusivity for the applicable licensed product in the applicable country or (3) ten years after the first commercial sale of the applicable licensed product in the applicable country covered by the Gilead Agreement, provided that the term for any profit-shared licensed product in the United States will expire upon the expiration or termination of the applicable profit-share term as set forth in an applicable profit-share agreement to be negotiated upon our exercise of our option to co-develop and co-promote such licensed product. If Gilead does not exercise an option to license a drug candidate, then the Gilead Agreement will terminate at the end of the last to expire option period. Sanofi In December 2019, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Genzyme Corporation, a subsidiary of Sanofi, which became effective in January 2020 (as subsequently expanded and amended, the Sanofi Agreement), to discover, develop and commercialize a pipeline of targeted protein degradation drugs for patients with challenging diseases in multiple therapeutic areas using our DEL-AI platform to identify small molecules designed to induce degradation of three specified initial drug targets. In January 2021, as part of the existing Sanofi Agreement, Sanofi paid us $22.0 million to exercise its option to expand the number of targets in the Sanofi Agreement from three to a total of five targets. In January 2021, we entered into the First Amendment to the Sanofi Agreement to modify the research term on all targets. In December 2021, we entered into the Second Amendment to the Sanofi Agreement to extend the substitution deadline on certain targets. In July 2022, we entered into the Third Amendment to the Sanofi Agreement to further extend the substitution deadline on certain targets. Also in July 2022, Sanofi elected to replace certain drug targets, and the substitution extended the research term of those targets by one year to 5.25 years. In August 2022 and November 2023, we entered into the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, respectively, to the Sanofi Agreement to modify the research plan for certain targets. In March 2024, we entered into the Sixth Amendment to the Sanofi Agreement to extend the research term for the collaboration target STAT6 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 6), a key drug target in type 2 inflammation, by two years. 26 Under the Sanofi Agreement, Sanofi has exclusive rights and is responsible for the clinical development, commercialization and manufacture of drug candidates resulting from the collaboration while we retain the option to co-develop, co-promote and co-commercialize all drug candidates in the United States directed to up to two targets, one of which must be selected from a list of targets designated at the execution of the Sanofi Agreement or any replacement of such targets, and one of which must be selected from targets identified by Sanofi as part of their January 2021 expansion. Our right to exercise our option to co-develop, co-promote and co-commercialize a given target is dependent on our ability to demonstrate, within a given timeframe, that we have sufficient cash resources and personnel to commercialize the product. The collaboration excludes our current internal protein degradation programs for which we retain all rights, and also excludes our future internal programs, provided that we distinguished future programs as excluded from the scope of the collaboration. In March 2025, Sanofi exercised its right to exclusively license one target (the First Sanofi License Extension), the first development candidate resulting from the Sanofi Agreement. Pursuant to the Sanofi Agreement, we received a license extension fee payment of $15.0 million in March 2025 for the First Sanofi License Extension. In May 2025, Sanofi exercised its right to exclusively license a second target (the Second Sanofi License Extension, and together with the First Sanofi License Extension, the Sanofi License Extensions), the second development candidate resulting from the Sanofi Agreement. Pursuant to the Sanofi Agreement, we received a license extension fee payment of $15.0 million in June 2025 for the Second Sanofi License Extension. The license to the functional intellectual property and all goods and services related to both the First Sanofi License Extension and the Second Sanofi License Extension were transferred during the second quarter of fiscal year 2025. For drug targets that are subject to the collaboration, we have primary responsibility for conducting preclinical research activities (including target validation, drug discovery, identification or synthesis) in accordance with the applicable research plan agreed to by the parties and established on a target-by-target basis. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to identify relevant target binders and targeted protein degraders in order to identify development candidates. Subject to certain exceptions, each party will bear its own costs in the conduct of such research. Sanofi will be responsible for any development and commercialization activities unless we exercise our co-development and co-promotion option. For those programs that we exercise our option to co-develop, co-promote and co-commercialize, we will be responsible for a portion of the U.S. development costs, the parties will split U.S. profits and losses evenly, and we will be eligible to receive royalties on ex-U.S. net sales and reduced milestone payments on such optioned products. Upon signing the Sanofi Agreement, Sanofi paid us an upfront payment of $55.0 million. Subsequently in January 2021, Sanofi paid us an additional $22.0 million to exercise its option to expand the number of targets beyond the initial targets included in the collaboration. In addition, from the signing of the Sanofi Agreement to November 30, 2025, we received payments of $20.0 million for research milestones and $30.0 million for license extension fees. As of November 30, 2025, we are eligible to receive up to approximately $930.0 million in total additional payments based on certain additional fees, payments and the successful completion of certain research development, regulatory and sales milestones. We are also eligible to receive mid-single digit to low teen percentage tiered royalties on annual net sales of any commercial products that may result from the collaboration, subject to certain reductions and excluding sales in the United States of any products for which we exercise our option to co-develop and co-promote, for which the parties share profits and losses evenly. Subject to earlier expiration in certain circumstances, the Sanofi Agreement expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product or profit-shared licensed product-by-profit-shared licensed product basis and country-by-country basis upon on the later of (1) the expiration of the last-to-expire patent with a valid claim covering the applicable licensed product in the applicable country, (2) the expiration of any regulatory exclusivity for the applicable licensed product in the applicable country or (3) ten years after the first commercial sale of the applicable licensed product in the applicable country covered by the Sanofi Agreement. Pfizer In September 2023, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Seagen Inc. (now a part of Pfizer Inc.) (the Pfizer Agreement) to develop a suite of targeted protein degraders against multiple targets nominated by Pfizer that are suitable for antibody conjugation. Pfizer will be responsible for conjugating these degraders to antibodies to make DACs, a new class of medicines for use in cancer treatment and advancing these DAC drug candidates through preclinical and clinical development and commercialization. Under the Pfizer Agreement, Pfizer has the option to obtain exclusive licenses to develop and commercialize certain degraders, while we retain an option for U.S. profit sharing and co-promotion on two products arising from the collaboration. The collaboration excludes our current internal protein degradation programs for which we retain all rights, and also excludes our future internal programs, provided that we have distinguished future programs as excluded from the scope of the collaboration. 27 For the targets nominated by Pfizer under the collaboration, we shall use commercially reasonable efforts to identify, synthesize, characterize and deliver targeted protein degraders that selectively bind to and degrade such targets. Development of licensed degraders, with the exception of licensed products for which we exercise our profit-share options, will be at Pfizer’s sole cost and expense. For the profit-share products, the parties will share net profits and net losses and global development costs, and we will be eligible to receive royalty and milestone payments on such optioned products. Under the terms of the Pfizer Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $60.0 million. In addition, from the signing of the Pfizer Agreement to November 30, 2025, we received payments of $10.0 million for research milestones. We are eligible to receive up to approximately $3.4 billion in contingent payments based on specified research, development, regulatory and commercial milestones across multiple programs. We are also eligible for mid-single to low double digit percentage tiered royalties on future sales. Subject to the exceptions described in the Pfizer Agreement, the Pfizer Agreement expires upon the first to occur of (1) the expiration of the last-to-expire option exercise period under the Pfizer Agreement if no such option has been exercised prior to such expiration and (2) the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term under the Pfizer Agreement. Manufacturing and Supply We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any facilities for product manufacturing, packaging, storage and distribution, or testing. We rely on and expect to continue to rely on contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for both drug substance and finished drug product. We have personnel or engaged consultants with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience and good project management to oversee contract manufacturing and testing activities. We have engaged third-party manufacturers to supply the drug substances for bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide, and NX-1607 and to develop and manufacture finished drug products for use in our clinical trials. Should any of these manufacturers become unavailable to us for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we may incur some delay in identifying and qualifying such replacements. All of our drug candidates are organic compounds of low molecular weight, generally called small molecules, but which are larger than traditional small molecule therapeutics. We have selected these compounds not only on the basis that they could have potentially favorable efficacy and safety profiles, but also for their ease of synthesis and the reasonable cost of their starting materials. In particular, our lead drug candidates are manufactured using reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. The chemistry is amenable to scale up and does not require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities. Competition The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience, scientific knowledge and intellectual property portfolio provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. Not only must we compete with other companies that are focused on protein degradation, but any drug candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Moreover, our industry is characterized by the existence of large numbers of patents and frequent allegations of patent infringement. Our focus is the discovery and development of innovative small molecules and antibody therapies designed to degrade protein levels, including targeted protein degraders. We are aware of multiple companies that primarily focus on developing small molecules that degrade target proteins. Drug candidates from our BTK degrader and CBL-B inhibitor programs may face competition from drugs with similar mechanisms of action. We are also aware of clinical-staged BTK degraders currently in development by multiple companies, and we are aware of at least once company currently developing a clinical-staged CBL-B inhibitor. 28 Our lead drug candidates target hematologic cancers and immune-mediated diseases. The most common methods of treating patients in oncologic indications are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer, including hematologic cancers. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. Some of the currently approved drug therapies are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. In general, although there has been considerable progress over the past few decades in the treatment of cancer and the currently marketed therapies provide benefits to many patients, these therapies all are limited to some extent in their efficacy and frequency of adverse events, and none of them are successful in treating all patients. As a result, the level of morbidity and mortality from cancer remains high. In addition to currently marketed drugs, there are also several drug candidates in late-stage clinical development for the treatment of oncologic indications and immune-mediated diseases. These products in development may provide efficacy, safety, convenience and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies. As a result, they may provide significant competition for any of our drug candidates for which we obtain market approval. If any of our drug candidates are approved for the indications for which we currently are conducting clinical trials or for which we expect to conduct clinical trials, they will compete with the foregoing therapies and the currently marketed drugs and potentially any drugs in development. It is also possible that we will face competition from other biologic or pharmaceutical approaches as well as from other types of therapies. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our drug candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, level of generic competition and availability of reimbursement. Intellectual Property We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, platforms, drug candidates and improvements thereof that are commercially important to our business, including obtaining, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among, other methods, pursuing patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and drug candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover, but is not limited to, our technology platforms, drug candidates and components thereof and their methods of use, and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We also rely on trade secret protection of our confidential information and know-how relating to our proprietary technology, platforms and drug candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our position in our DEL-AI platform and drug candidates. Trade secrets are difficult to protect and provide us with only limited protection. Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions and improvements; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; to maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned or controlled by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patent applications; to defend against challenges and assertions by third parties of their purported intellectual property rights; and to operate without infringement of valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. For risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.” 29 We believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position and substantial know how and trade secrets relating to our DEL-AI platform and drug candidates. As of December 31, 2025, we have 12 U.S. patents, 24 U.S. patent applications, 23 foreign patents and 121 foreign applications that we own, three U.S. patents, eight pending U.S. patent applications, five foreign patents and 88 foreign patent applications that we co-own with Gilead. The expected expirations for issued patents and patents that may issue from pending applications covering our clinical candidates are between the years 2039 and 2044 for bexobrutideg; 2039 and 2042 for zelebrudomide; and 2040 and 2043 for NX-1607. The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. However, the patent term of U.S. patents may, in certain cases, be adjusted for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. In addition, the term of a patent may be extended as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. For example, for drugs that are regulated by the FDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it is permitted to extend the term of a patent that covers such drug for up to five years beyond the normal expiration date of the patent. For more information on patent term extensions, see “Business—Government Regulation—The Hatch-Waxman Act—Patent term extension.” In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical drug candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents, if issued, covering those drug candidates. We intend to seek patent term extensions to any of our patents, if issued, in any jurisdiction where these are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. We also rely on trade secret protection for our know-how, confidential and proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Although we take steps to protect our confidential and proprietary information as trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors, competitors or other third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements under the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in relation to the resulting know-how or inventions. For more information, please see the sections titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Marketing of Our Drug Candidates.” 30 Government Regulation The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. FDA approval process In the United States, biological and pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion, advertising and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, tracking and tracing and import and export of biological and pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending new drug applications (NDAs) or biologics licensure applications (BLAs), withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other governmental entities. Biological or pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved or licensed product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of a drug, or the safety, purity, or potency of a biological product, for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval and licensure requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as in vitro and animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved new drug or biological product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug or biological product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug or biological product that is not the subject of an approved NDA or BLA. In support of a request for an IND, a sponsor must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor may be a company seeking to develop the drug or biological product or, as in the case of an investigator-initiated trial, the sponsor may be an investigator who is conducting the trial. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug or biological product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), which is an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. 31 The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, as a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol, or part of a protocol, is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed. A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensure. Specifically, the FDA has promulgated regulations governing the acceptance of data from foreign clinical trials not conducted under an IND, establishing that such data from studies will be accepted as support for an IND or application for marketing approval if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies. If a marketing application is based solely on foreign clinical data, the FDA requires that the foreign data be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; the studies must have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and the FDA must be able to validate the data through an onsite inspection or other appropriate means, if the FDA deems such an inspection to be necessary. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board (IRB) representing each institution participating in the clinical trial. The IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Clinical trials to support NDAs or BLAs for marketing approval or licensure are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the drug or biological product is introduced into healthy human subjects or in certain indications such as cancer, into patients with the target disease or condition. The drug is tested in Phase 1 to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness or potency of the drug or biological product for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a product candidate demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are conducted. In a Phase 3 trial, the drug or biological product is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy or potency and purity, and safety, of the product for approval or licensure, to establish the overall risk benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. 32 In most cases the FDA requires at least two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy or potency of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances, such as where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible. Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 trials, are often required following initial approval and are intended to gain additional experience and data from treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials conducted under an IND must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse effects occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug or biological product; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in an NDA or BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug or biological product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug or biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA or BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA or BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The application must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an application is substantial. The submission of most NDAs or BLAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently set for fiscal year 2025 at $4,310,002 for applications requiring clinical data, and $2,155,001 for applications not requiring clinical data, and the manufacturer and sponsor under an approved NDA or BLA are also subject to annual program fees, currently set for fiscal year 2025 at $403,889 for each prescription product. These fees are typically increased annually. Sponsors of applications for drugs granted Orphan Drug Designation are exempt from these user fees. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA or BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs and BLAs to encourage timeliness. The FDA intends to review applications for standard review product candidates within ten months of the 60-day filing date; and applications for priority review product candidates within six months. Priority review can be applied to drugs or biological products that the FDA determines treat a serious condition, and if approved, would offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug or biological product to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved, or otherwise explain why such referral was not made. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. 33 Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug or biological product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the application unless compliance with cGMPs is satisfactory and the application contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective, or the biological product is safe, pure and potent, in the indication studied. After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA and accompanying information and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either 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 generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA intends to review such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval or licensure. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biological product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of approval or licensure, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug or biological product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use (ETASU). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug or biological product. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. If the FDA approves or licenses a drug or biological product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product; require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling; require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval or licensure; require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization; or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or BLA, or an NDA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA or BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA and BLA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs and BLAs. Approval of medicines in the European Union (EU) In the EU, companies can apply for marketing authorizations under the centralized procedure to the EMA or they can submit their application to the competent authorities in the European Economic Area (EEA) Member States via the decentralized procedure, the national procedure, or the mutual recognition procedure. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain medicines, such as those produced by biotechnology, orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products and those containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions, viral diseases, or diabetes. The centralized procedure remains optional for medicines containing a new active substance, or which are a significant therapeutic, scientific, or technical innovation or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Therefore the centralized procedure remains mandatory for the majority of biological medicinal products. The marketing authorization granted under the centralized procedure by the EMA will be valid in all EEA Member States. The evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) takes up to 210 “active” days (excluding all “clock stops” for an applicant to address questions by the EMA–there are usually one or two clock stops that last three to six months and one to two months, respectively) but can be extended, should additional information be required by the CHMP. The European Commission makes the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s positive opinion. An accelerated assessment procedure of 150 days may be implemented for drugs considered to be of major public health interest. There is also an internal re-examination procedure available in case the applicant disagrees with the CHMP opinion. Under the mutual recognition procedure, the national marketing authorization holder may submit an application to other EEA Member States. The Member States involved must decide whether to recognize the approval within 90 days of receiving the application. If a Member State does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding. 34 Since the UK has left the EU, it is no longer covered by centralized marketing authorizations. A separate marketing authorization application is required in respect of the UK. The UK government recently reached a new agreement with the EU, the “Windsor Framework,” which replaced the Northern Ireland protocol, according to which, the EU pharmaceutical legal framework acquis continued to apply to Northern Ireland. Since the implementation of the Windsor Framework, medicinal products intended for the UK market including Northern Ireland are now authorized by the MHRA and must bear a “UK only” label. This means that medicinal products placed on the market in Northern Ireland no longer need to be compliant with EU law. These new measures have been implemented as of January 1, 2025. The MHRA has ceased to participate in the assessment of any centralized procedures since January 1, 2021. Since then, the MHRA has launched the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), a new accelerated assessment procedure for marketing authorization applications that enables eligible products to be authorized in and potentially placed on the UK market faster. On January 1, 2024, the MHRA launched an International Recognition Procedure for marketing authorization applications whereby the MHRA will, when considering such applications, take into account the approval of medicines by trusted reference regulators in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, United States and EU into its own abbreviated assessment. Clinical trials regulation and data sharing in the EU In the EU/EEA, all initial clinical trial applications (CTA) must be submitted through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) and ethics approval must be sought from an independent Ethics Committee. Under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which has been in effect since January 31, 2022, replacing the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the drug being trialed occurring during the clinical trial must be reported via the EudraVigilance database. In the EU, Transparency Regulation No 1049/ 2001, EMA Policy 0043, EMA Policy 0070, as well as the Clinical Trials Regulation No 536/2014 set out the obligation for sponsors to make publicly available certain information stemming from clinical studies, whether proactively or in response to third party requests. Interested parties based in the EU may submit a request to the EMA to access information included in the marketing authorization application for authorized medicinal products. Commercially confidential information and protected personal data, however, may not be accessed. The European Health Data Space Regulations (the EHDS Regulations) came into force on March 26, 2025. The aims of the EHDS Regulations are to provide individuals with more control over their electronic health data, enable cross-border sharing of European Health Data (EHD) between national EU healthcare systems and facilitate the sharing of EHD for secondary research purposes. The EHDS Regulations impose new obligations, but also create opportunities for companies engaged in health-related research to share and access health data on a large scale. Although the EHDS Regulations have come into force, key obligations will not apply until March 2029. Regulatory framework in the UK following Brexit The UK officially left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period during which EU law remained applicable to the UK began on February 1, 2020, and ended on December 31, 2020. The EU regulatory framework for medicinal products in place before the end of the transition period has been preserved in UK domestic legislation as “retained EU law” but the UK may diverge from EU law in the future should it wish to do so. Pursuant to the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU pharmaceutical legal framework acquis continued to apply in Northern Ireland and medicines could only be placed in the Northern Ireland market if they complied with EU law. The UK government reached a new agreement with the EU, the “Windsor Framework,” which has replaced the Northern Ireland protocol. According to the Windsor Framework, medicinal products intended for the UK market including Northern Ireland are now authorized by the MHRA and must bear a “UK only” label. This means that medicinal products placed on the market in Northern Ireland no longer need to be compliant with EU law. These new measures have been implemented as of January 1, 2025. Expedited approval pathways The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and Priority Review designation. In addition, Accelerated Approval offers the potential for approval based on a surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint. In May 2014, the FDA published a final Guidance for Industry titled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions Drugs and Biologics,” which provides guidance on the FDA programs that are intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drug or biological product candidates as well as threshold criteria generally applicable to concluding that a product candidate is a candidate for these expedited development and review programs. 35 The FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life threatening disease or condition, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s review clock for a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. A product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross disciplinary project lead for the review team; rolling review; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. Accelerated Approval Pathway The FDA may grant Accelerated Approval to a drug or biological product for a serious or life threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over available treatments based upon a determination that the drug or biological product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant Accelerated Approval for such drug or biological product for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM) and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Drugs and biological products granted Accelerated Approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval. For the purposes of Accelerated Approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug or biological product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with Accelerated Approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support Accelerated Approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a drug or biological product. The Accelerated Approval Pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug or biological product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, Accelerated Approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs and biological products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit. The Accelerated Approval Pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a drug or biological product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug or biological product from the market on an expedited basis, and under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, the FDA has increased authority to expedite withdrawals. In addition, all promotional materials for drugs and biological products approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA. 36 The EU and UK operate accelerated evaluation and assessment schemes, which include, at EU level, Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme and, at UK level, the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), which may be granted in exceptional cases, often when there is unmet medical need for a life-threatening or serious debilitating condition and existing data show a positive benefit/risk balance that means the medicinal product is of a major public health interest. The CHMP of the EMA or the MHRA (or other national competent authority) will make this determination on a case-by-case basis and subject to meeting eligibility criteria. Accelerated assessment takes place within 150 days. Other regulatory facilitations for these pathways include additional scientific advice at key development milestones and frequent guidance and discussions throughout the approval process. In the UK, the MHRA has launched the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), a new accelerated assessment procedure for marketing authorization applications that enables companies to enter the UK market faster, available since January 1, 2021. On January 1, 2024, the MHRA launched an International Recognition Procedure for Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) marketing authorization applications whereby the MHRA will, when considering such applications, recognize the approval of medicines by trusted reference regulators in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, United States and EU following its own abbreviated assessment. Orphan drugs Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drugs or biological products intended to treat a rare disease or condition—generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the name of the drug or biological product and its potential orphan-designated use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first NDA or BLA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular drug or biological product to treat a particular disease with FDA Orphan Drug Designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same disease, 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 biological product for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biological product for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of Orphan Drug Designation are tax credits for certain research and an exemption from the NDA or BLA application user fee. A designated orphan drug or biological product may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is licensed 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 rescinded if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In the EU and UK, under Regulation (EC) 141/2000 and the UK Human Medicines Regulations 2012 SI 2012 No. 1916 (as amended), respectively, medicinal products may be granted an orphan drug designation if they are used to treat or prevent life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions that affect no more than five in 10,000 people in the EU/UK and for which there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment when the application is made, or when the medicinal product is of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. In addition, orphan drug designation can be granted to drugs used to treat or prevent life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions which, for economic reasons, would be unlikely to be developed without incentives. The application for orphan designation must be submitted to and approved by the EMA in respect of the EU or to the MHRA for Great Britain before an application is made for marketing authorization for the product. Medicinal products which benefit from orphan status, which they successfully maintain post-grant of the marketing authorization, can benefit from up to ten years of market exclusivity in respect of the approved indication. This prevents regulatory authorities in the EU or Great Britain, as the case may be, from granting marketing authorizations for similar medicinal products for the same therapeutic indication, unless another applicant can show that the similar medicinal product in question is safer, more effective or clinically superior to the orphan-designated product or if the marketing authorization holder consents to the second orphan medicinal product application, or where the marketing authorization holder cannot supply the needs of the market. The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify the maintenance of market exclusivity. Conversely, the 10-year exclusivity period can be further extended by two years, when pediatric studies are conducted in accordance with an agreed pediatric investigation plan and in completion of all the legal requirements. 37 It is noted that the general pharmaceutical legislative framework, as well as the framework applicable to orphan and pediatric medicinal products in the EU, is under review. On April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Regulation set to replace Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and a new Directive to replace Directive 2001/83 on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use. If made into law, this proposal will revise the existing general pharmaceutical legislation and may reduce applicable regulatory exclusivities which will significantly affect all medicinal products that will be authorized after the legislative changes have taken effect. Post-approval requirements Drugs and biological products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with 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, through the applicant’s submission of a supplemental application, and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data. In addition, drug and biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • Restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, including total or partial suspension of production, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; • Fines, untitled or warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials; • Refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs, BLAs or supplements to approved NDAs or BLAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals; • Product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or • Injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biological products may be promoted only for the approved indications and consistently with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off label uses may be subject to significant liability. In addition, the distribution of prescription drug and biological products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) which regulates the distribution of drugs, biological products and drug or biological product samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug and biological product distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription drug and biological product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Many jurisdictions, including the EU and the UK, require each marketing authorization holder, national competent authority and the EMA to operate a pharmacovigilance system to ensure that the safety of all medicines is monitored throughout the lifetime of a medicinal product. The overall EU pharmacovigilance system operates through cooperation between the EU Member States, EMA and the European Commission. Applicable obligations extend to all activities consisting of procuring, holding, supplying or exporting medicinal products to the public and may therefore be incumbent upon importers, distributors and other economic operators in the supply chain. 38 Abbreviated new drug applications for generic drugs In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme allowing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD). Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form and the strength of the drug. An applicant may submit an ANDA suitability petition to request the FDA’s prior permission to submit an abbreviated application for a drug that differs from the RLD in route of administration, dosage form, or strength, or for a drug that has one different active ingredient in a fixed combination drug product (i.e., a drug product with multiple active ingredients). At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists may consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient. Abridged marketing authorization applications for generic and biosimilar drugs in the EU and the UK Generic and hybrid medicinal products of reference medicinal products authorized via the centralized procedure have automatic access to the centralized procedure. Generic and hybrid products can refer to the complete dossier (i.e., the quality, preclinical and clinical data) of the reference medicinal product in their marketing authorization application, by demonstration of bioequivalence, usually through the submission of the appropriate bioavailability studies after the period of regulatory data protection (also called “data exclusivity”) has expired, namely eight years after the grant of the marketing authorization of the reference medicinal product. Applicants will be able to cross-refer to the dossier of the reference medicinal product, as long as the data protection period has expired. This abridged application procedure avoids the requirement to repeat trials and allows generic applicants a faster entry to the market. If a biosimilar of a reference biological product does not meet the conditions in the definition of generic medicinal products, owing to, in particular, differences relating to raw materials or differences in manufacturing processes of the biological medicinal product and the reference biological medicinal product, the results of appropriate preclinical studies or clinical trials relating to these conditions must be provided. The type and quantity of supplementary data to be provided must comply with the relevant criteria stated in Annex I of Directive 2001/83 as amended and the related detailed guidelines. The results of other tests and trials from the reference medicinal product’s dossier do not need to be provided. 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant, and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness is scientifically and legally appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional bridging studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the previously approved reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the reference drug has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant. Hatch-Waxman patent certification and the 30-month stay In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Orange Book. 39 When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that would be required of an ANDA applicant. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carve out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent, known as a Section VIII statement. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant. Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments In addition, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a particular drug until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity (NCE). For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years from the date the NDA is approved, unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; it does, however, block the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs during the period of exclusivity. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved. Biosimilars and reference product exclusivity The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological product candidates shown to be highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that a product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can generally be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the interchangeable biosimilar and the reference biological product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles and have slowed implementation of the BPCIA by the FDA. 40 Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of reference product exclusivity, another company may obtain FDA licensure and market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. An interchangeable biosimilar product is a biosimilar that, depending on state pharmacy laws, may be substituted for the reference product at the pharmacy without the intervention of the prescribing healthcare professional (similar to how generic drugs are routinely substituted for brand-name drugs). It is possible that the distinction between a biosimilar and interchangeable could be eliminated in the future; the FDA in its Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal for the first time included a request that Congress “eliminate the statutory distinction between the approval standard for biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.” In the EU and the UK, an abridged procedure is available for the regulatory approval of biosimilars, on the basis of comparability studies to the reference biological medicine to substantiate the safety and efficacy profile of the biosimilar product. This comparability with the reference biological medicinal product is only available after the period of regulatory data protection has expired namely eight years after the grant of the marketing authorization of the reference biological medicinal product has expired. Recently, the MHRA and the EMA have stated that comparative data may not be required across all therapeutic indications and may be extrapolated to other indications already approved for the reference medicinal product. The interchangeability of biosimilars remains subject to national determination, on a case-by-case basis; however a recent scientific recommendation by the EMA may lead to a default assumption of interchangeability across all biosimilars in the EU and in the UK. Pediatric studies and exclusivity Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA, BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with Orphan Drug Designation. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. Under the European Pediatric Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006), which has also been reflected in and retained by UK law, applicants must submit to the national competent authority or the EMA data from pediatric studies in compliance with an agreed PIP for the validation or acceptance of a marketing authorization application, unless the medicine is exempt because of a deferral or waiver. The conduct of the pediatric studies in accordance with the agreed PIP will result in the grant of a reward (period of protection) which will depend on the type of product (i.e., orphan medicinal product will benefit from an extension of the orphan exclusivity by two years, bringing it to 12 years of marketing exclusivity; or an extension of the supplementary protection certificate by six months). 41 Patent term extension After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug or biological product patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between the effective date of an IND application and the submission date of a NDA or BLA, plus the time between submission date and the approval date of the NDA or BLA, up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug or biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the approved drug or biological product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. In the EU and the UK, a patent may be extended by up to a maximum of five years and the protection conferred by the certificate shall extend only to the product covered by the authorization to place the corresponding medicinal product on the market (in the EU and UK) and for any use of the product as a medicinal product that has been authorized before the expiry of the certificate. The aim is to compensate for the erosion of patent term between the filing of a patent and the grant of an MA for a medicinal product incorporating the relevant invention. The term of a supplementary protection certification may be extended by a further six months if the pediatric studies have been conducted in accordance with an agreed PIP within the applicable timeframe. Foreign regulation In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates to the extent we choose to sell any products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. As in the United States, post-approval regulatory requirements, such as those regarding product manufacture, marketing or distribution would apply to any product that is approved outside the United States. We will also be subject to certain ex-U.S. privacy laws in connection with our clinical trial activities outside the United States such as the EU and UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), non-compliance with which could result in administrative fines of up to the greater of 4% of global annual revenues or €20.0 million (under the EU GDPR) or £17.5m (under the UK GDPR). The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Reimbursement of medicines in Europe In the EU, pricing and reimbursement methods can differ in each Member State. Some Member States and the UK may require that health technology assessments (HTA) be completed for the product to be recommended for funding under the NHS. The outcome of HTAs is decided on a national basis and some Member States may decide not to reimburse the use of medicines or may reduce the rate of reimbursement. As of January 12, 2025, EU Health Technology Regulation No. 2021/2282 has become applicable in respect of new oncology medicines. Regulation 2021/2282 imposes a new procedure, a joint clinical assessment at a centralized level, as a mandatory step for the assessment of the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products by national authorities. It requires companies applying for products in scope to make relevant submissions for the joint clinical assessment, in line with a number of prespecified criteria. In the UK, NICE is the body in England and Wales, which conducts HTAs and issues guidance on whether a product is considered to be “cost-effective” and therefore recommended for use and reimbursement under the national health service. This means that if a positive recommendation has been obtained, then the medicinal product will be widely available to patients in England and Wales. For avoidance of doubt, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own HTA bodies which will conduct their own assessment. 42 Other healthcare laws Although we do not currently have any products on the market, in addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical and biological products, we are also subject to healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the U.S. federal and state governments. Even though we are not in a position to make patient referrals and do not bill Medicare, Medicaid or other government or commercial third-party payers, our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will subject us to healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by federal and state governments. These laws include anti-kickback statutes, false claims statutes and other healthcare laws and regulations. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is a broad criminal statute that prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for, referring, or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service that may be reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the ACA) amended the intent element of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to clarify that a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. Among others, this statute applies to arrangements between pharmaceutical and biological product manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, pharmacies, purchasers and formulary managers on the other, including, for example, consulting/speaking arrangements, discount and rebate offers, grants, charitable contributions and patient support offerings. A violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute includes, per violation, civil monetary penalties and significant criminal fines under the statute, additional civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act, as discussed in more detail below, possible imprisonment, and mandatory exclusion from participation in the federal healthcare programs, meaning that federal healthcare programs would no longer reimburse (directly or indirectly) for products or services furnished by the excluded entity or individuals. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions under the law, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false record or statement material to a false claim. The False Claims Act covers claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses (directly or indirectly) individuals and entities, such as under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off of the Federal Supply Schedule. The law also prohibits avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The government can bring claims directly or through a civil whistleblower or qui tam action, and potential liability includes mandatory treble damages and significant per claim penalties currently set at $14,308 up to $28,619 per false claim or statement for penalties assessed after July 3, 2025. Numerous pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been investigated under these laws for purportedly, among other things, concealing price concessions in the pricing information submitted to the government for government price reporting purposes, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Additionally, the ACA amended the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a violation of that statute can serve as a basis for liability under the federal False Claims Act. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply to commercially reimbursed items or services or regardless of whether reimbursement from a federal or state healthcare program is available for the item or service. There is also the federal criminal False Claims Act, which is similar to the federal civil False Claims Act and imposes criminal liability on those that make or present a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government. Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order or receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular provider, practitioner or supplier (although pharmaceutical and biological product manufacturers are not considered providers, practitioners or suppliers for purposes of this law), and contracting with an individual or entity that the person knows or should know is excluded from participation in a federal healthcare program. In addition, federal criminal statutes created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises of any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. 43 In addition, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes obligations on certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the storage, use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms, requirements to facilitate certain patient rights, requirements to safeguard the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and requirements to provide notice to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information. HITECH increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. On December 10, 2020, the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued proposed revisions to the HIPAA Privacy Rule aimed at reducing regulatory burdens that may exist in discouraging coordination of care and patient access to their health information, among other changes, which could affect not just covered entities and business associates, but broader entities in the life sciences space. Moreover, on December 27, 2024, HHS issued proposed revisions to the HIPAA Security Rule aimed at strengthening required cybersecurity protections for protected health information. While a final rule has not yet been issued for either proposed rule, if adopted, these proposed changes may require us to update our policies and procedures to comply with the new requirements. In addition, many state laws govern the privacy and security of health information and other personal information in certain circumstances (such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, and similar state privacy laws in several other states, along with health privacy focused laws such as the Washington My Health My Data Act), and these state laws may differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect. These laws are rapidly evolving and may impose additional regulatory compliance burden and legal risks on our operations. Further, pursuant to the ACA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has promulgated regulations to implement what is commonly known as the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, among others, to collect and report information on certain payments or transfers of value they make to U.S.-licensed physicians, teaching hospitals, physician assistants, nurse practitioners or clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants and certified nurse-midwives, as well as investment interests in the manufacturer held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reports must be submitted on an annual basis, and the reported data is made available in searchable form on a public website. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties. In addition, several states require prescription drug and biological product companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug and biological products and to report gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases, prohibit prescription drug price gouging, or impose payment caps on certain pharmaceutical products deemed by the state to be “high cost.” In addition, states such as California, Connecticut, Nevada and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Several additional states are considering similar proposals. Certain states and local jurisdictions also require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties. Efforts to ensure that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. If a company’s operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, it may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of its operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other federal or state government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, imprisonment, and reputational harm. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action for an alleged or suspected violation can cause a company to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business, even if such action is successfully defended. In the EU and the UK companies must comply with national general anti-bribery legislation, including the UK Bribery Act 2010, as well as medicines legislation which prohibits the supply, offer or promise of certain gifts and benefits in connection with the promotion of medicinal products to any person qualified to prescribe, recommend, use, procure or supply them. Companies that breach these laws may incur substantial fines and imprisonment. 44 In the EU and the UK, payments made to healthcare professionals must be publicly disclosed under applicable transparency provisions and agreements with healthcare professionals must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the healthcare professional’s employer. Such requirements are set out in national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States and in the UK. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. U.S. healthcare reform In the United States there have been, and continue to be, proposals by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payors to control or manage the costs of healthcare and, more generally, to reform the U.S. healthcare system. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which was intended to substantially change the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (i) proscribed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (ii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (iii) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (iv) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (v) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Public Health program, (vi) required annual reporting of certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to licensed practitioners, (vii) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research, and (viii) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Some of these cost-savings pilots and projects, such as the Enhancing Oncology Model, are directed specifically at oncology. The ACA and certain of its provisions have been subject to judicial challenges as well as legislative and regulatory efforts to repeal or replace them, to alter their interpretation, or to otherwise impact the implementation of the ACA. For example, on March 11, 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which included among its provisions a sunset of the ACA’s cap on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Under the ACA, manufacturers’ rebate liability was capped at 100% of the average manufacturer price for a covered outpatient drug. Effective January 1, 2024, manufacturers’ MDRP rebate liability is no longer capped, meaning manufacturers may pay more in MDRP rebates than they receive on the sale of certain covered outpatient drugs. The American Rescue Plan Act also temporarily increased premium tax credit assistance for individuals eligible for subsidies under the ACA for 2021 and 2022 and removed the 400% federal poverty level limit that otherwise applies for purposes of eligibility to receive premium tax credits. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) extended this increased tax credit assistance and removal of the 400% federal poverty limit through 2025. This tax credit assistance expired on December 31, 2025, and additional action from Congress would be needed to restore such assistance in the future. In the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments to the ACA. It remains to be seen precisely what any new legislation will provide, when or if it will be enacted, and what impact it will have on the availability and cost of healthcare items and services, including drug and biological products. 45 Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year that started in 2013 and, due to subsequent statutory amendments, will remain in effect through the first eleven months of the fiscal year 2032 sequestration order unless additional congressional action is taken, with the exception of a temporary suspension, and later a temporary reduction instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic that expired on July 1, 2022. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 made other changes, including the reduction of Medicare payments to several types of providers and an increase in the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additionally, in August 2022, President Biden signed into law the IRA, which implements substantial changes to the Medicare program, including drug pricing reforms and changes to the Medicare Part D benefit design. Among other reforms, the IRA imposes inflation rebates on drug and biological product manufacturers for products reimbursed under Medicare Parts B and D if the prices of those products increase faster than inflation beginning in 2023; implements changes to the Medicare Part D benefit that, beginning in 2025, caps benefit annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000, with new discount obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers; and, beginning in 2026, establishes a “maximum fair price” for a fixed number of pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts B and D following a price negotiation process with the CMS. CMS has also taken steps to implement the IRA, including releasing the negotiated maximum prices, which are effective in 2026 for the first ten drugs that were subject to the IRA’s negotiation process, as well as the negotiated maximum prices for fifteen additional drugs to be effective in 2027, and releasing quarterly lists of Medicare Part B products that are subject to adjusted coinsurance rates based on the inflationary rebate provisions of the IRA. While it remains to be seen how the drug pricing provisions imposed by the IRA will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, several pharmaceutical manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have challenged the law, including through lawsuits brought against the HHS, the Secretary of the HHS, CMS, and the CMS Administrator challenging the constitutionality and administrative implementation of the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. If federal spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA or the NIH to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any products we may develop. Additionally, the cost of prescription pharmaceuticals and biological products has been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. For example, President Trump has signed multiple executive orders addressing prescription drug pricing and access, including: on April 15, 2025, outlining several actions the Secretary of the Department of HHS must take to optimize healthcare regulations that will provide access to prescription drugs at lower costs; on May 5, 2025, aiming to promote domestic production of critical medicines; and on May 12, 2025, aiming to establish a “most favored nation” drug pricing policy that would tie U.S. drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Since the May 12, 2025 “most favored nation” executive order, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement “most favored nation” pricing, including by suggesting that the administration may impose significant tariffs on pharmaceuticals if such manufacturers do not reach agreements to implement “most favored nation” pricing. Additionally, in November 2025, CMS announced a new voluntary payment initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model) where drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs that are intended to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’ products. Moreover, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug and biological product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient support programs, reduce the cost of prescription drugs and biological products under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug and biological products. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry. 46 At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s importation plan to allow pharmacists and wholesalers in the state to import certain medications from Canada. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize any product that is ultimately approved, if approved. In addition, several state laws require disclosures related to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers with respect to price increases and new product launches that exceed certain levels as identified in the relevant statutes. Another emerging trend at the state level is the establishment of prescription drug affordability boards, some of which will prospectively permit certain states to establish upper payment limits for drugs that the state has determined to be “high-cost.” Prescription drug affordability boards in several states, including Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington, have begun identifying products for affordability reviews and issuing information requests to manufacturers to determine whether upper payment limits may be justified. Some of these state laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements that government officials have not yet clarified. Given the lack of clarity in the laws and their implementation, our future reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations. Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug or biological products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA authorization under an FDA expanded access program; however, manufacturers are not obligated to provide investigational new drug or biological products under the current federal right to try law. Human Capital As of November 30, 2025, we had 317 full-time or part-time employees, of which approximately 38% have earned an M.D. or a Ph.D. As of November 30, 2025, 257 of our full-time or part-time employees are engaged in research and development. From time to time, we retain independent contractors to support our organization. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good. We consider the intellectual capital of our employees to be an essential driver of our business. We continually evaluate our business needs and opportunities and strive to balance in-house expertise and capacity with outsourced expertise and capacity. Currently, we outsource substantially all clinical trial work to clinical research organizations and drug substance and finished drug product manufacturing to contract manufacturers. Competitive pay and benefits Drug development is a complex endeavor which requires deep expertise and experience across a broad array of disciplines. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies both large and small compete for a limited number of qualified applicants to fill specialized positions. We monitor our compensation programs closely and provide what we consider to be a very competitive mix of compensation, insurance and wellness benefits for all our employees, as well as participation in our equity and other enhanced benefit programs. To attract qualified applicants, we offer a total rewards package consisting of a base salary and cash target bonus, a comprehensive benefits package and equity compensation for all full-time and part-time employees. Bonus opportunity and equity compensation increase as a percentage of total compensation based on level of responsibility. Actual bonus payout is based on company and individual performance. Diversity and inclusion We are committed to creating and maintaining a workplace free from discrimination or harassment on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or expression or any other status protected by applicable law. Our management team and employees are expected to exhibit and promote honest, ethical and respectful conduct in the workplace. All of our employees must adhere to a code of conduct that sets standards for appropriate behavior and are required to attend biennial training to help prevent, identify, report and stop any type of discrimination and harassment. Recruitment, hiring, development, training, compensation and advancement at our company is based on qualifications, performance, skills and experience without regard to gender, race and ethnicity. As of November 30, 2025, approximately 55% of our full-time and part-time employees were self-reported as female. Of our vice president-level and above employees, approximately 45% were self-reported as female. 47 In addition, as of November 30, 2025, approximately 50% of our full-time employees were self-reported as ethnic or racial minorities in the United States, with approximately 41% Asian, 2% Black or African American, 7% Hispanic or Latino and 1% of other minority groups or two or more races. Of our vice president-level and above employees, approximately 33% were self-reported as ethnic or racial minorities in the United States, with approximately 30% Asian and 3% Black or African American. Employee development and training We focus on attracting, retaining and cultivating talented individuals. We emphasize employee development and training by providing access to a wide range of online and instructor led development and continual learning programs. Employees are encouraged to attend scientific, clinical and technological meetings and conferences and have access to broad resources they need to be successful. Board of Directors oversight Our Board of Directors (Board) recognizes the critical importance of our team and the necessity to ensure a diverse, inclusive, and innovative work environment that is centered around a values-based culture. Our Board meets regularly with management to discuss issues impacting our employees, and to focus on ways to support our workforce. Our focus on culture comes from our Board and flows throughout our company. In evaluating our Chief Executive Officer and management team, significant emphasis is placed on their contributions to our overall culture. Our Board’s Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing with management our human resources activities, which include, among other things, matters relating to employee development, management and engagement, pay equity, and our demographics, diversity and inclusion. Our Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for overseeing company programs relating to corporate responsibility and sustainability, including environmental, social and governance matters. Corporate Information We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in August 2009 under the name Kura Therapeutics, Inc. We subsequently changed our name to Nurix, Inc. in February 2012 and then to Nurix Therapeutics, Inc. in October 2018. Our principal executive offices are located at 1600 Sierra Point Parkway, Brisbane, California 94005, and our telephone number is (415) 660-5320. The mark “Nurix” is our registered trademark in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Nurix logo is our common law trademark. All other service marks, trademarks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K appear without the ® and ™ symbols, but those references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights, or the right of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. Additional Information Nurix’s Internet website address is http://www.nurixtx.com. On our website, we make available, free of charge, our annual, quarterly and current reports, including amendments to such reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports as well as other information regarding us and other companies that file materials with the SEC electronically. Also available on our website is information relating to corporate governance at Nurix and our Board, including our Corporate Governance Guidelines; our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (for our directors, officers and employees); and our Board Committee Charters. We will provide any of the foregoing information without charge upon written request to our Corporate Secretary, Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., 1600 Sierra Point Parkway, Brisbane, California 94005. We use our Investor Relations website (http://ir.nurixtx.com) as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD promulgated by the SEC. These disclosures are included in the “News” and “Events and Presentations” sections of our website. Accordingly, investors should monitor these portions of our website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts. 48 The information contained on our website does not constitute, and shall not be deemed to constitute, a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any other report we file with, or furnish to, the SEC. Our references to the URLs for websites are intended to be inactive textual references only. 49 Item 1A. Risk Factors Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and the accompanying notes and the information contained in our other public filings before deciding whether to invest in shares of our common stock. We cannot assure you that any of the events described below will not occur. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of or that we deem immaterial may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses over at least the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability. Our net loss was $264.5 million and $193.6 million for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of November 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,003.2 million. To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and have financed our operations primarily through our collaborations and sales of our equity interests. We are in the early stages of development of our drug candidates. Our lead drug candidates, bexobrutideg (NX-5948), zelebrudomide (NX-2127) and NX-1607, are in the early stages of clinical development. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years. We anticipate that our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements will increase substantially if and as we: • increase enrollment in and further develop our drug candidates bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 through Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials; • submit investigational new drug applications (INDs) and initiate clinical trials of our other drug candidates; • enter advanced clinical development and scale up external manufacturing capabilities to supply clinical trials; • expand the capabilities of our DEL-AI platform and apply our DEL-AI platform to advance additional drug candidates into preclinical and clinical development; • conduct process development for manufacturing of our drug candidates; • seek marketing approvals for any drug candidates that successfully complete clinical trials; • prepare for negotiations with the pricing authorities and submission to the health technology appraisal (HTA) bodies; • ultimately establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure and scale up external manufacturing capabilities to commercialize any drug candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval; • expand, maintain and protect our intellectual property portfolio; • hire additional clinical, regulatory, manufacturing, quality assurance and scientific personnel; and • add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel to support our research, product development and future commercialization efforts and support our operations as a public company. Our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or other regulatory authorities to perform trials in addition to those we currently expect, or if there are any delays in establishing appropriate manufacturing arrangements for or in completing our planned clinical trials or the development of any of our drug candidates. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses we will incur or when, if ever, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment. 50 We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never be profitable. We are in the early stages of clinical development of our lead drug candidates bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607. We expect that it will be many years, if ever, before we have a drug candidate ready for commercialization. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, obtaining marketing approval for and commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our drug candidates, discovering additional drug candidates, establishing and maintaining arrangements with third parties for the manufacture of clinical supplies of our drug candidates, obtaining marketing approval for our drug candidates and manufacturing, marketing, selling and obtaining reimbursement for any products for which we may obtain marketing approval. If one or more of the drug candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved drug candidate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research or product development programs or future commercialization efforts. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 and any future development of our drug candidates, grow our pipeline of drug candidates, expand the breadth of our DEL-AI platform, continue research and development and initiate additional clinical trials of and potentially seek marketing approval for our lead programs and other drug candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, reimbursement and sales and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research, product development programs or any future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market drug candidates that we otherwise would prefer to develop and market ourselves. We had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $592.9 million as of November 30, 2025. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next 12 months. However, our future capital requirements and the period for which we expect our existing resources to support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including: • the progress, costs and results of our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials for bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 and any future clinical development of such drug candidates; • the scope, progress, costs and results of preclinical and clinical development for our other drug candidates and development programs; • the number and development requirements of other drug candidates that we pursue; • the scope of, and costs associated with, future advancements to our DEL-AI platform; • the success of our collaborations with Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), Sanofi S.A. (Sanofi) and Seagen Inc. (now a part of Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer)) and any other collaborations we may establish; • the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our drug candidates; • the costs, timing and outcome of negotiations with pricing authorities and health technology assessment authorities; • the costs and timing of future commercialization activities, including product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, for any of our drug candidates for which we receive marketing approval; • the revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our drug candidates for which we receive marketing approval; • the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims; and 51 • our ability to establish additional collaboration arrangements with other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies on favorable terms, if at all, for the development or commercialization of our drug candidates. We will need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. In addition, our drug candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funds to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or drug candidates. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. Although we may receive potential future milestone payments under our collaborations with Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer, we do not currently have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of common stock. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making acquisitions or capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or drug candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. We commenced operations in 2009, and our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, conducting discovery and research activities, filing patent applications, identifying potential drug candidates, undertaking preclinical studies, establishing arrangements with third parties for the manufacture of initial quantities of our drug candidates and conducting early-stage clinical trials. Our lead drug candidates are in the early stages of clinical development and their risk of failure is high. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully: complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials; obtain marketing approvals; manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf; or conduct market access, sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. In addition, as an early-stage business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. We expect our financial condition and results of operations to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance. 52 Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Our Drug Candidates We are early in our development efforts. Our lead drug candidates, bexobrutideg (NX-5948), zelebrudomide (NX-2127) and NX-1607, are in the early stages of clinical development. If we are unable to advance our drug candidates through clinical development or are unable to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our drug candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed. We are early in our development efforts. Our lead drug candidates, bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607, are in the early stages of clinical development and their risk of failure is high. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in building our DEL-AI platform, in the identification and preclinical development of our current drug candidates, in the preparation for and initiation of Phase 1 clinical trials for our lead drug candidates and in the preparation for and initiation of the DAYBreak Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating bexobrutideg. Our ability to generate revenue from product sales, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our drug candidates. The success of our drug candidates will depend on several factors, including the following: • sufficiency of our financial and other resources; • successful completion of preclinical studies; • successful submission of INDs or Clinical Trial Applications and initiation of clinical trials; • successful patient enrollment in, and completion of, clinical trials; • receipt and related terms of marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities; • obtaining and maintaining patent and trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity for our drug candidates as well as obtaining relevant exclusivity extensions (due to the conduct of pediatric studies); • making arrangements with third-party manufacturers, or establishing manufacturing capabilities, for both clinical and commercial supplies of our drug candidates; • achieving desirable therapeutic properties for our drug candidates’ intended indications; • establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and launching commercial sales of our products, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others; • acceptance of our products, if and when approved, by patients, the medical community and third-party payors; • obtaining and maintaining third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement; • establishing a continued acceptable safety profile of our drug candidates and maintaining such a profile following approval; and • effectively competing with other therapies. If we do not successfully achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner, or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates, which could materially harm our business. Moreover, if we do not receive regulatory approvals, we may not be able to continue our operations. In addition, we filed for and received an Innovation Passport designation for NX-1607 in the United Kingdom (UK) in February 2022. The Innovation Passport is the mandated entry point to the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) in the UK to facilitate approval of and market access to an innovative medicine. Grant of the Innovation Passport paves the way for enhanced engagement with key stakeholders such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), health technology agencies in the UK such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the Scottish Medicines Consortium and NHS England. However, although the goal of ILAP and the Innovation Passport is to reduce the time to market and enable earlier patient access, they do not accelerate conduct of clinical trials or mean that the regulatory requirements are less stringent, nor do they ensure that any NX-1607 marketing authorization application (MAA) will be approved or that any approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. Despite receiving an Innovation Passport designation, we may decide to delay or forego the commercialization of NX-1607 in the UK or the development may otherwise not proceed. 53 One of our approaches to the discovery and development of drug candidates based on our targeted protein degradation platform is unproven, which makes it difficult to predict the time, cost of development and likelihood of successfully developing any products. Treating diseases using targeted protein degradation is a new treatment modality. Our future success depends on the successful development of this novel therapeutic approach. Very few small molecule drug candidates designed to control cellular protein levels, such as our BTK degraders, have been tested in humans, none have been approved in the United States or Europe, and the data underlying the feasibility of developing these therapeutic products is both preliminary and limited. Discovery and development of targeted protein degraders that harness ligases to degrade protein targets have been impeded largely by the complexities and limited understanding of the functions, biochemistry and structural biology of E3 ligases as well as by challenges of engineering compounds that promote protein-protein interactions. We believe that our targeted protein degrader drug candidates may offer an improved therapeutic approach by removing the disease-causing proteins instead of simply inhibiting their activities. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop our targeted protein degrader drug candidates is ongoing and the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing targeted protein degrader-based therapeutic treatments is both preliminary and limited. Further, certain patients have shown inherent (primary) resistance to approved BTK inhibitors and other patients have developed acquired (secondary) resistance to these inhibitors. Both bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide degrade BTK with mutations that confer resistance to currently marketed BTK inhibitors, and we believe that preliminary data from our ongoing Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of bexobrutideg and our Phase 1 trial of zelebrudomide may provide evidence of clinical benefit to patients with such resistance mutations. However, any inherent primary or acquired secondary resistance to our BTK degraders in patients would prevent or diminish their clinical benefit. We are in the early stages of clinical development of bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide and we currently have limited safety data of bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide in humans. Although some of our drug candidates have produced observable results in animal studies, these drug candidates may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans, and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. As such, there may be adverse effects from treatment with any of our current or future drug candidates that we cannot predict at this time. Additionally, the regulatory approval process for novel drug candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better-known or extensively-studied drug candidates. Although other companies are also developing therapeutics based on targeted protein degradation, no regulatory authority has granted approval for any such therapeutic. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of targeted protein degrader drug candidate development, and we cannot predict whether targeted protein degradation will result in the development and marketing approval of any products. Any development problems we experience in the future related to any of our targeted protein degrader research programs may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs or may prevent the development of a commercially viable product. Advancing our targeted protein degrader drug candidates creates significant challenges for us, including: • educating medical personnel regarding the potential efficacy and safety benefits, as well as the challenges, of incorporating our drug candidates, if approved, into treatment regimens; and • establishing the sales and marketing capabilities to gain market acceptance, if approved. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate, or from commercializing any targeted protein degrader drug candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Drug development is a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur unexpected costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. Our lead drug candidates are in the early stages of clinical development and their risk of failure is high. We are unable to predict when or if any of our drug candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive marketing approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any drug candidate, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates in humans. Before we can commence clinical trials for a drug candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned INDs in the United States or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies ultimately will support the further development of our programs. 54 Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to the outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our drug candidates are safe and effective for use in treating specific conditions in order to obtain marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that any future larger registration clinical trials will be successful because drug candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. Drug candidates that have shown promising results in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent larger registration clinical trials. Additionally, the outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later-stage clinical trials. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials, that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including: • we may experience delays in corresponding with the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority regarding regulatory issues; • we may experience delays in reaching, or may fail to reach, a consensus with regulators on trial design; • the supply or quality of our drug candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our drug candidates may be insufficient or inadequate, including as a result of delays in the testing, validation, manufacturing and delivery of drug candidates to the clinical sites by us or by third parties with whom we have contracted to perform certain of those functions; • we may experience delays in reaching, or may fail to reach, agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols with prospective trial sites; • regulators or institutional review boards (IRBs) may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site; • we may receive feedback from regulatory authorities that requires us to modify the design of our clinical trials; • we may face delays under human tissue act legislation and restrictions across various jurisdictions; • we may experience difficulty in designing clinical trials and in selecting endpoints for diseases that have not been well-studied and for which the natural history and course of the disease is poorly understood; • the selection of certain clinical endpoints may require prolonged periods of clinical observation or analysis of the resulting data; • the number of patients required for clinical trials of our drug candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate; • our drug candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, causing us or our investigators, regulators or IRBs to suspend or terminate the trials; • we may have to suspend or terminate clinical trials of our drug candidates for various reasons, including a partial or full clinical hold based on a finding that our drug candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, or that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks; • our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all; • regulators or IRBs may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical trials for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements; • clinical trials of our drug candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs; • the cost of clinical trials of our drug candidates may be greater than we anticipate; • the supply or quality of our drug candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our drug candidates may be insufficient or inadequate; • regulators may revise the requirements for approving our drug candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate; 55 • any future collaborators that conduct clinical trials may face any of the above issues and may also conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us; and • disruptions caused by macroeconomic, political and market conditions, including supply chain disruptions, may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same drug candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate safety and efficacy sufficient to obtain marketing approval for our drug candidates. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our drug candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: • be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our drug candidates; • not obtain marketing approval at all; • obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired; • obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings; • be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements or changes in the way the product is administered; or • have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval. Our product development costs also will increase if we experience delays in preclinical studies or clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our drug candidates, or could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates, which may harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Further, cancer therapies sometimes are characterized as first-line, second-line or third-line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third-line or later use, meaning for use after two or more other treatments have failed. When cancer is detected early enough, first-line therapy, usually chemotherapy, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, targeted therapy or a combination of these, is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Second- and third-line therapies are administered to patients when prior therapy was ineffective. Our current and planned clinical trials for our drug candidates bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 are and will be with patients who have received one or more prior treatments. Subsequently, for those drug candidates that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we may seek approval potentially as a first-line therapy, but any drug candidates we develop, even if approved, may not be approved for first-line therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials. If serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics are identified during the development of any drug candidates we may develop, we may need to abandon or limit our further clinical development of those drug candidates. We have recently begun to evaluate our lead drug candidates in human clinical trials, and there have been very few clinical trials to date involving small molecule drug candidates designed to control cellular protein levels through targeted protein degradation. It is impossible to predict when or if any drug candidates we may develop will prove safe in humans. There is a limited safety data set for the effects of bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 in humans. There can be no assurance that our current drug candidates or any future drug candidate will not cause undesirable side effects. Unforeseen side effects from our drug candidates could arise at any time during preclinical or clinical development. A potential risk in any protein degradation product is that healthy proteins or proteins not targeted for degradation will be degraded or that the degradation of the targeted protein in itself could cause adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics. It is possible that healthy proteins or proteins not targeted for degradation could be degraded by our drug candidates in any of our current or future preclinical studies or clinical trials. There also is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following treatment with our drug candidates. 56 If any drug candidates we develop are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects, or have characteristics that are unexpected, including in preclinical studies, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. For example, increased bleeding risk and cardiac arrhythmia such as atrial fibrillation have been reported side effects of approved BTK inhibitors. Furthermore, NX-1607 could activate the immune response to unsafe levels and may have the potential to induce hypercytokinemia, or cytokine storm, which is the overstimulation of immune cells and subsequent overproduction of their activating compounds. Many drug candidates that initially showed promise in early-stage testing for treating cancer or other diseases later have been found to cause side effects that prevented further clinical development of the drug candidates or limited their competitiveness in the market. The results of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. Initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later-stage trials or when these trials are completed. The results of preclinical studies may not be predictive of the results of clinical trials, and the results of any early-stage clinical trials we commence may not be predictive of the results of the later-stage clinical trials or when these trials are completed. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. In particular, the small number of patients in our planned early clinical trials may make the results of these trials less predictive of the outcomes of later clinical trials. The results of our initial clinical trials for bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 may not be predictive of the results of further clinical trials of these drug candidates or any of our other drug candidates. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data often are susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless have failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Our future clinical trials may not ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our drug candidates. There is a high failure rate for drug candidates proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving encouraging results in earlier studies and clinical trials. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could materially harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Interim top-line and preliminary data from our planned clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. We have published and may continue to publish interim top-line or preliminary data from our current and planned clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our reputation, business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If we experience delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary marketing approvals could be delayed or prevented. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our drug candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. In particular, we are currently conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for each of our lead drug candidates, bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607, and a Phase 2 clinical trial for bexobrutideg, and we expect to initiate a Phase 3 clinical trial for bexobrutideg in 2026. We cannot predict how difficult it will be to enroll patients for these trials. Therefore, our ability to identify and enroll eligible patients for our bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 clinical trials may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for drug candidates that treat the same indications as our drug candidates, and patients who otherwise would be eligible for our planned clinical trials instead may enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ drug candidates. Moreover, the size of the relevant patient populations for the diseases that our lead drug candidates target is small, and as more companies begin to focus attention and resources on drug candidates to treat the same indications as our drug candidates, we may experience delays or be unable to successfully recruit and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients in our clinical trials. Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including: • the severity of the disease under investigation; • the size of the patient population and process for identifying patients; 57 • the availability and efficacy of approved medications for the disease under investigation; • the eligibility criteria for the trial in question; • the perceived risks and benefits of the drug candidates under study; • the efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials; • physicians’ attitudes and practices with respect to clinical trial enrollment; • the burden on patients due to inconvenient procedures; • the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; and • the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our current or planned clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our current or planned clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our drug candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular drug candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on drug candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and drug candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and drug candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such drug candidate. The manufacture of drugs is complex, and we and our third-party manufacturers are early in our manufacturing efforts. We have established manufacturing relationships with a limited number of suppliers to manufacture raw materials and the drug substance of any drug candidate for which we are currently pursuing, or may in the future pursue, preclinical or clinical development. Our systems for complying with current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs), manufacturing process development with our third-party manufacturers and scale-up are at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our drug candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our drug candidates. We or any of our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production, including contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our current or future drug candidates for clinical trials, our ability to obtain marketing approval or our ability to provide supply of our drug candidates for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped. For example, in October 2023, following our communication to the FDA of our intention to transition to an improved manufacturing process for zelebrudomide, the FDA placed a partial clinical hold on our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating zelebrudomide. We actively engaged in discussions with FDA as part of our efforts to lift the partial clinical hold, and in March 2024, the FDA lifted the partial clinical hold. There can be no assurance that we can address any issues resulting in any partial or full clinical hold in a timely manner or at all, and we may incur additional expenses in connection with our efforts to address a partial or full clinical hold or advance our clinical programs. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional potential drug candidates, or in further efforts to expand the breadth of our DEL-AI platform. A key element of our strategy is to apply our DEL-AI platform to address a broad array of targets and new therapeutic areas. The therapeutic discovery activities we are conducting may not be successful in identifying drug candidates that are useful in treating hematologic cancers, immune-mediated diseases or any other diseases. Our research programs initially may show promise in identifying potential drug candidates, yet fail to yield drug candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: • the research methodology used may not be successful in identifying potential drug candidates; 58 • potential drug candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be drugs that will receive marketing approval or achieve market acceptance; or • potential drug candidates may not be effective in treating their targeted diseases. Research programs to identify new drug candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a potential drug candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. If we are unable to identify suitable drug candidates for preclinical and clinical development, we will not be able to obtain revenues from the sale of products in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. We also intend to expand the capabilities of our DEL-AI platform and leverage our platform to discover, develop and potentially commercialize additional drug candidates beyond our current portfolio to target diseases in a wide range of organ systems and tissues and treat various disease states. These enhancements require substantial technical, financial and human resources, and may not result in the discovery or development of additional drug candidates or therapies. We may pursue what we believe is a promising opportunity to leverage our platform only to discover that certain of our risk or resource allocation decisions were incorrect or insufficient, or that individual products or our science in general has technology or biology risks that were previously unknown or underappreciated. Our strategy of pursuing the value of our DEL-AI platform over a long time horizon and across a broad array of human diseases may not be effective. In the event material decisions in any of these areas turn out to be incorrect or sub-optimal, we may experience a material adverse impact on our business and ability to fund our operations and we may never realize what we believe is the potential of our DEL-AI platform. We face substantial competition in an environment of rapid technological change, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do. The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Moreover, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face and will continue to face competition from third parties that use protein degradation, antibody therapy, adoptive cell therapy, inhibitory nucleic acid, gene editing or gene therapy development platforms and from companies focused on more traditional therapeutic modalities, such as small molecule inhibitors. The competition is likely to come from multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. We are aware of a number of biotechnology companies focused on developing small molecules that degrade target proteins or inhibit E3 ligases, many of which currently are in preclinical or clinical development. In addition, certain large pharmaceutical companies have disclosed investments in this field. Furthermore, we are aware of multiple other BTK degrader programs in clinical development. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Further, mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies also may prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. All of these competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could prevent us from obtaining the orphan designation in the European Union (EU) and/or in the UK and result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our drug candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. 59 If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we expect and announce, the commercialization of our products may be delayed and, as a result, our stock price may decline. From time to time, we estimate the timing of the anticipated accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings and may be associated with payments from third-party collaborators such as Gilead, Sanofi or Pfizer. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are and will be based on numerous assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones as publicly announced, or at all, our revenue may be lower than expected, the commercialization of our products may be delayed or never achieved and, as a result, our stock price may decline. Our estimated market opportunities for our drug candidates are subject to numerous uncertainties and may prove to be inaccurate. If we have overestimated the size of our market opportunities, our future growth may be limited. Our estimated addressable markets and market opportunities for our drug candidates are based on a variety of inputs, including data published by third parties, our own market insights and internal market intelligence and internally generated data and assumptions. We have not independently verified any third-party information and cannot be assured of its accuracy or completeness. Market opportunity estimates, whether obtained or derived from third-party sources or developed internally, are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates that may prove inaccurate. Although we believe our market opportunity estimates are reasonable, such information is inherently imprecise. In addition, our assumptions and estimates of market opportunities are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to those described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If this third-party or internally generated data prove to be inaccurate or if we make errors in our assumptions based on that data, our actual market may be more limited than we estimate it to be. In addition, these inaccuracies or errors may cause us to misallocate capital and other critical business resources, which could harm our business. The biopharmaceutical industry is subject to extensive regulatory obligations and policies that are subject to change, including due to judicial challenges. On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that courts reviewing agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “must exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” The decision will have a significant impact on how lower courts evaluate challenges to agency interpretations of law, including those by the FDA and other agencies with significant oversight of the biopharmaceutical industry. The new framework may result in an increase in both the frequency of such challenges and their odds of success by eliminating one way in which the government previously prevailed in such cases. As a result, significant regulatory policies may be subject to increased litigation and judicial scrutiny. Any resulting changes in regulation may result in unexpected delays, increased costs, or other negative impacts on our business that are difficult to predict but could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. For example, certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors . Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties We expect to depend on collaborations with third parties for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the drug candidates we may develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of those drug candidates. We have sought third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of some of our targeted protein degrader programs. For example, in June 2019 we entered into a collaboration with Gilead; in December 2019 we entered into a collaboration with Sanofi, which was subsequently expanded and amended in January 2021; and in September 2023 we entered into a collaboration with Seagen Inc. (now a part of Pfizer). Each of the foregoing collaborations requires us to conduct certain research activities. Our likely collaborators for any other collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities. These and any future arrangements with third parties limit our control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any drug candidates we may seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into. 60 Collaborations involving our research programs or any drug candidates we may develop, including our collaborations with Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer, pose risks to us, including: • Collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to collaborations with us. • Collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any drug candidates we may develop or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborator’s strategic focus or available funding or external factors such as an acquisition or business combination that diverts resources or creates competing priorities. • Gilead and Sanofi have broad option rights to select up to five targets each, and Pfizer has option rights to multiple targets, for exclusive targeted protein degrader development, so long as not excluded by us under the terms of each collaboration, and may select targets we are considering but have not taken sufficient action to exclude under each collaboration. • Collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a drug candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a drug candidate for clinical testing. • Collaborators could develop independently, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or drug candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours. • Collaborators with marketing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products. • Collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce or defend our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. For example, Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer have the first right to enforce or defend certain intellectual property rights under the applicable collaboration arrangement with respect to particular licensed programs, and although we may have the right to assume the enforcement and defense of such intellectual property rights if the collaborator does not, our ability to do so may be compromised by their actions. • Disputes may arise between the collaborators and us that result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our products or drug candidates or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources. • We may lose certain valuable rights under circumstances identified in our collaborations, including if we undergo a change of control. For example, Sanofi may terminate its agreement with us if we undergo a change of control. • Collaborations may be terminated and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable drug candidates. For example, each of Gilead, Sanofi and Pfizer can terminate its agreement with us in its entirety or with respect to a specific target for convenience upon written notice or in connection with a material breach of the agreement by us that remains uncured for a specified period of time. • Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of drug candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. For instance, if a present or future collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program under such collaboration could be delayed, diminished or terminated. If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of drug candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop drug candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. Moreover, all of the risks relating to product development, marketing approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K apply to the activities of our collaborators. 61 We may in the future decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of any drug candidates we may develop. These relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute the ownership interest of our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we could face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement will depend upon, among other things, our assessment of the proposed collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of several factors. If we license rights to any drug candidates we or our collaborators may develop, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may seek to establish additional collaborations. If we are not able to establish collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans. We plan to continue to selectively pursue collaborations with leading biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development and commercial expertise and capabilities. We face significant competition in attracting appropriate collaborators to advance the development of any drug candidates for which we may seek a collaboration. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend upon, among other things, our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject drug candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such drug candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology (which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge), the terms of any existing collaboration agreements and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator also may have the opportunity to collaborate on other drug candidates or technologies for similar indications and will have to evaluate whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than one with us. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document and execute. In addition, consolidation among large pharmaceutical companies has reduced the number of potential future collaborators, and we may not be able to locate a suitable collaborator. Any collaboration we enter into may limit our ability to enter into future agreements on particular terms or covering similar target indications with other potential collaborators. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the drug candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our drug candidates or bring them to market and generate revenue from product sales, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for completing such trials. We rely on third-party contract research organizations (CROs) to conduct our clinical trial programs for bexobrutideg, zelebrudomide and NX-1607 and we will rely on third-party CROs to conduct any clinical trials for other drug candidates. Agreements with these CROs might terminate for a variety of reasons, including for such CRO’s failure to perform. Entry into alternative arrangements, if necessary, could significantly delay our product development activities. Our reliance on these CROs for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols in the applicable IND. Moreover, the FDA and other foreign regulators such as the EMA and the MHRA require compliance with good clinical practice standards (GCPs), for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. If these CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our drug candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our drug candidates. 62 We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for any future clinical trials and commercialization. This reliance on third parties may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for both drug substance and finished drug product. This reliance on CMOs, particularly where one CMO is the sole source of the drug substance or finished drug product, may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. Further, we rely on third parties located in China for some of our contract manufacturing, and we expect to continue to use such third-party manufacturers for such purposes. For any activities conducted in China, we are exposed to the possibility of product supply disruption and increased costs in the event of changes in the policies of the United States or Chinese governments, political unrest or unstable economic conditions in China. Any unfavorable government policies on international trade, such as export controls, capital controls or tariffs, new legislation or regulations, renegotiation of existing trade agreements, or any retaliatory trade actions due to recent or future trade tension, may impede, delay, limit, or increase the cost of manufacturing our therapeutic candidates. For example, in April 2025, the United States announced extensive tariffs on goods imported from China, where certain of our third-party manufacturers and suppliers are located. While we believe we currently have sufficient inventory for clinical use and do not anticipate any near-term impact to our clinical programs, we expect these tariffs may increase the cost of our product supply in the future. Such events could result in our clinical or commercial supply of drug, packaging and other services being interrupted or limited, which could harm our business. We may be unable to establish agreements with CMOs or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with CMOs, reliance on them entails additional risks, including: • reliance on the CMO for regulatory, compliance and quality assurance; • the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the CMO; • the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how; and • the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the CMO at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. We have only limited technology transfer agreements in place with respect to our drug candidates, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We acquire many key materials on a purchase order basis. As a result, we do not have long-term committed arrangements with respect to our drug candidates and other materials. If we receive marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, we will need to establish an agreement for commercial manufacture with a third party. The CMOs we retain may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our CMOs, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions or other adverse regulatory actions, including untitled or warning letters, clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, failure to approve pending applications, license revocation, seizures or recalls of drug candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA or the EMA or other national or international regulatory agencies pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our new drug application (NDA) to the FDA or our MAA to the EMA or other regulatory authority. We do not have complete control over all aspects of the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory bodies, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we do not have complete control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, the EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our drug candidates or if such regulatory authority withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our drug candidates, if approved. 63 Our drug candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other drug candidates and products for access to suitable manufacturing facilities. As a result, we may not obtain access to these facilities on a priority basis or at all. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval or could result in withdrawal of marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If our current CMOs cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our drug candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement manufacturer or may not be able to reach agreement with any alternative manufacturer. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our drug candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis. Some of our suppliers may experience disruption to their respective supply chain due to the effects of macroeconomic conditions, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. We obtain certain chemical or biological intermediates in the synthesis of our drug candidates and natural health products (NHPs) for toxicology testing in countries affected by macroeconomic events and conditions, including inflation, interest rate fluctuations, uncertainty with respect to the federal budget and debt ceiling and potential government shutdowns related thereto, increasing financial market volatility and uncertainty, the impact of war or military conflict, including regional conflicts around the world, and public health pandemics. Supply chain disruptions and delays as a result of any new tariff policies or trade restrictions could also negatively impact our cost of materials and production processes. For example, the United States has announced tariffs on many goods imported from specified nations, including China and those in the European Union. In addition, there are currently discussions concerning potential increased tariffs for pharmaceutical products, which may impact our supply chain and create uncertainty in the broader pharmaceutical industry. While certain tariffs have been suspended, modified or temporarily reduced, we cannot predict the results of the U.S. government’s trade negotiations or the outcome of ongoing legal challenges to specific tariff policies. If we are unable to obtain these chemical or biological intermediates or NHPs in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner due to disruptions in the global supply chain caused by macroeconomic events and conditions, the development, testing and clinical trials of that drug candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. Our CMOs may be unable to successfully scale-up manufacturing of our drug candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, which would delay or prevent us from developing our drug candidates and commercializing approved products, if any. In order to conduct clinical trials of our drug candidates, we will need to manufacture our drug candidates in large quantities. Quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. Our reliance on a limited number of CMOs, the complexity of drug manufacturing and the difficulty of scaling up a manufacturing process could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our drug candidates, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates successfully. Furthermore, if our CMOs fail to deliver the required commercial quality and quantities of materials on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement CMOs capable of production in a timely manner at a substantially equivalent cost, then testing and clinical trials of that drug candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates Even if any of our drug candidates receive marketing approval, a drug candidate may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success. If any of our drug candidates receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, ibrutinib is a well-established current treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and doctors may continue to rely on this and other treatments. If our drug candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate sufficient revenue from product sales and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our drug candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: • the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments; 64 • the prevalence and severity of any side effects, in particular compared to alternative treatments; • our ability to offer our products for sale at competitive prices; • the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments; • the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies; • the strength of our marketing, sales and distribution support; • the availability of third-party payor coverage and adequate reimbursement; • the ability to secure a positive HTA recommendation for the product to be prescribed and reimbursed under the national health system; • the timing of any marketing approval in relation to other product approvals; and • any restrictions on the use of our products together with other medications. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates if and when they are approved. We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of biopharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either by ourselves or through collaboration or other arrangements with third parties. We may build our own focused, specialized sales and marketing organization to support the commercialization in the United States of drug candidates for which we receive marketing approval and which can be commercialized with such capabilities. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a drug candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have incurred these commercialization expenses prematurely or unnecessarily. These efforts may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include: • our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs and other support personnel; • the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and • unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. If we are unable to establish our own sales and marketing capabilities or enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our revenue from product sales and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we ourselves were to market and sell any products that we develop. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to market and sell our drug candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are acceptable to us. Any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates. 65 Even if we are able to commercialize any drug candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, or fail to secure a positive health technology assessment, which would harm our business. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug candidate to other available therapies. In some non-U.S. markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a drug candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues, if any, we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more drug candidates, even if our drug candidates obtain marketing approval. Our ability to commercialize any drug candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government healthcare programs, private health insurers, national health technology assessment authorities in Europe and other organizations, and if reimbursement and coverage is available, the level of reimbursement and coverage. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A key focus in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, as well as mandating a system of manufacturer rebates to government payors. Increasingly, government authorities and third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to cover our costs. Reimbursement may affect the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. 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, across the entire eligible patient population, as a first-line treatment or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, also may 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, may take into account comparative cost-effectiveness, particularly in European jurisdictions, 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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop. We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our drug candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our drug candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • decreased demand for any drug candidates or products that we may develop; • termination of clinical trials; 66 • withdrawal of marketing approval, recall, restriction on the approval or a “black box” warning or contraindication for an approved drug; • withdrawal of clinical trial participants; • significant costs to defend the related litigation; • substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients; • loss of revenue; • injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention; • reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; and • the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop. Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our product liability insurance coverage as we initiate our clinical trials, as we expand our clinical trials and if we commence commercialization of our drug candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain or increase our insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology, our current drug candidates and any future drug candidates that we may develop, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors and other third parties could develop and commercialize technology and drug candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drug candidates may be impaired, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market. Our commercial success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property and proprietary protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our current drug candidates, future drug candidates that we may develop and proprietary technology. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and drug candidates. If we are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our proprietary drug candidates and technology or do not otherwise adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors and other third parties may be able to use our drug candidates and technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage that we may have, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors and other third parties to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Moreover, the patent applications we own, co-own or license may fail to result in issued patents that cover our current and future drug candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. If the patent applications we hold with respect to our development programs and drug candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current and future drug candidates, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize our drug candidates and our business. To protect our proprietary positions, we file patent applications in the United States and other countries related to our novel technologies and drug candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and prosecution process is expensive, complex and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications in all potential jurisdictions at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments, and it is possible that we may be unable to correct such defects. If any current or future licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors and other third parties may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, or design around our claimed subject matter. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties. 67 Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our therapeutics for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, clinicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute. Consequently, the types of claims in issued patents of our patent portfolio may fail to afford strong protection against third-party infringement. The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation, resulting in court decisions, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which have increased uncertainties as to the ability to enforce patent rights in the future. In addition, the protections offered by laws of different countries vary and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law and jurisprudence restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than U.S. patent law does. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds and technologies commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights, whether owned or in-licensed, are highly uncertain. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our current and future drug candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions typically are not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first inventors to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications, whether owned or in-licensed, may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or drug candidates, in whole or in part, or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Moreover, we may be subject to third-party challenges in patent offices in the United States and abroad. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. For example, our pending patent applications may be subject to third-party submissions of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) challenging the validity of one or more claims of our owned or licensed pending patent applications, precluding the granting of a patent based on one of our owned or licensed pending patent applications or we may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or other post-grant proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our or our licensors’ patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenge could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or drug candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights, which could significantly harm our business and results of operations. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights or exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and drug candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and drug candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientific personnel and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, any threat to the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future drug candidates. Further, recent reforms and changes at government agencies of the United States and those of non-U.S. jurisdictions could increase the delays, uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications, and the maintenance, enforcement, or defense of our issued patents. For example, the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to properly administer their functions is highly dependent on the levels of funding available to the agency and their ability to retain personnel and fill key leadership appointments, among various factors. Termination of employees or delays in replacing or hiring for positions could significantly impact the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to fulfill their functions and could greatly impact our ability to timely and adequately prosecute or maintain our patent applications, and our ability to timely and adequately maintain, enforce, or defend our issued patents. 68 Even if our patent applications issue as patents and are unchallenged, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives, prevent competitors and other third parties from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors and other third parties may be able to design around or circumvent our patents, should they issue, by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors and other third parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we own or license is not sufficiently broad and strong to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates could be negatively affected and companies may be dissuaded from collaborating with us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Changes in patent law in the United States and in non-U.S. jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our drug candidates. As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and therefore is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Past or future patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents, may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection and may affect the scope, strength and enforceability of our patent rights or the nature of proceedings that may be brought by or against us related to our patent rights. Additionally, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on decisions and actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Any of the foregoing, including any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions, could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are able to obtain patent protection for our drug candidates, the life of such protection is limited, and third parties could develop and commercialize products and technologies similar or identical to ours and compete directly against us after the expiration of our patent rights and our ability to successfully commercialize any product or technology would be materially adversely affected. The life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. For example, in the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Even if we successfully obtain patent protection for an approved drug candidate, it may face competition from generic or biosimilar medications. Manufacturers of generic or biosimilar drugs may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our patents in court or before a patent office, and we may not be successful in enforcing or defending those intellectual property rights and, as a result, may not be able to develop or market the relevant product exclusively, which would materially adversely affect any potential sales of that product. 69 Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents protecting such drug candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patents and patent applications may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Upon issuance in the United States, the term of a patent can be increased by patent term adjustment based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, but this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. The term of a U.S. patent may also be shortened if the patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. A patent term extension (PTE) based on regulatory delay may be available in the United States and in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and the EU, including through a supplementary protection certificate (SPC). In the EU and the UK, patent protection can be extended for a maximum period of five years and six months under certain circumstances. However, only a single patent can be extended for each marketing approval, and any patent can be extended only once, for a single product. Laws governing extensions analogous to PTEs in foreign jurisdictions vary widely, as do laws governing the ability to obtain multiple patents from a single patent family. Additionally, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. If we are unable to obtain PTE or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our therapeutic will be shorter and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Upon the expiration of patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, we will not be able to assert such patent rights against potential competitors and other third parties, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may need to license intellectual property from third parties that may not be available to us or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, and we may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our drug candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses. A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights, that are important or necessary to the development of our drug candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of a third party to commercialize our own technology or drug candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from such third party. Because our development programs may in the future require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these third-party proprietary rights. A license to such intellectual property may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our drug candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, also may be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our drug candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. We may not be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional drug candidates we may seek to acquire. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or drug candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates and future drug candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. 70 Numerous third-party U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents exist in the area of biotechnology, including in the area of targeted protein degraders and including patents owned or controlled by our competitors. There is considerable and complex intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, reexamination and inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our drug candidates, future drug candidates and technology, including interference, derivation, reexamination or inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO. Our competitors or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future and claims may also come from competitors or other third parties against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. Other parties may allege that our drug candidates or the use of our technologies infringe patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. As we continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current and future drug candidates, competitors or other third parties may claim that our technology infringes, misappropriates or otherwise violates their intellectual property rights. There are and may in the future be additional U.S. and foreign-issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties in the fields in which we are pursuing drug candidates. For example, we are aware of a patent owned by a third party with a claim that covers many potential targeted protein degraders. This patent may be alleged to cover one or more of our targeted protein degrader drug candidates, including our bexobrutideg and zelebrudomide drug candidates. While we believe that we have valid defenses against any assertion of such patent against us, such defenses may be unsuccessful. If we are unsuccessful and any of our targeted protein degrader drug candidates is found to infringe this patent, we could be required to obtain a license to such patent or forced to permanently cease developing, manufacturing, marketing and commercializing the infringing targeted protein degrader drug candidate. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving the licensor and other third parties the right to use the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing, royalty and other payments. We also could be forced, including by court order, to permanently cease developing, manufacturing, marketing and commercializing the drug candidate. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willingly infringed any such patent. Even if we were ultimately to prevail, any litigation could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business. Moreover, as the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our drug candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our drug candidates or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our drug candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Patent and other types of the intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. If we are found, or believe there is a risk we may be found, by a court of competent jurisdiction to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, which could be significant, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from producing or commercializing our drug candidates or future drug candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Alternatively, we may need to redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure, including due to any additional or separate regulatory approval to which the redesigned products may be subject by regulatory authorities, and any redesigned products may be of inferior quality or performance. If we lose a foreign patent lawsuit alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our therapeutics in one or more foreign countries and/or be required to pay monetary damages for infringement or royalties in order to continue marketing. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information, trade secrets or other intellectual property of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of these outcomes would have a material adverse effect on our business. 71 Further, we do not know which processes we will use for commercial manufacture of our future products, or which technologies owned or controlled by third parties may prove important or essential to those processes. Many companies have filed, and continue to file, patent applications related to novel protein degradation therapies that target disease-causing proteins. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued and others may issue in the future. Because this area is competitive and of strong interest to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, there likely will be additional patent applications filed and additional patents granted in the future, as well as additional research and development programs expected in the future. If a patent holder believes the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of one of our drug candidates or future products infringes its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have licensed other patent protection for our technology. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our licensed patent portfolio may therefore have no deterrent effect. It is also possible that we have failed to identify all relevant third-party patents or applications. Patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our drug candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. In addition, we may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale, importation or use of a current or future drug candidate, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our therapeutics. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. Furthermore, because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending that we are not aware of that may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or importation of our drug candidates or future products. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, later be amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our future products or the manufacture or use of our future products. As such, there may be applications of others now pending or recently revived patents of which we are unaware. These patent applications may later result in issued patents, or the revival of previously abandoned patents, that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use or sell our products. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future. If we were to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. patent in court, such as an issued U.S. patent of potential relevance to some of our drug candidates or future drug candidates or manufacture or methods of use, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This burden is a high one and in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity or enforceability by invalidating the claims of any such U.S. patent or finding that our drug candidates or technology did not infringe any such claims. We may choose to challenge the enforceability or validity of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-exam, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (EPO) or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our drug candidates or proprietary technologies. 72 Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may be time-consuming, cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities and ongoing business operations. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our future products or processes. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. Unlike some of our larger competitors and other third parties, we may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. Uncertainties resulting from the litigation of patent litigation and other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts, adversely affect our ability to raise additional funds and could limit our ability to continue our operations. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that we or our employees, consultants, contractors or advisors have misappropriated, wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property. We may hire and employ individuals who were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, universities as well as other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We have received confidential and proprietary information from collaborators, prospective licensees and other third parties. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not improperly use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have inadvertently or otherwise improperly used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s former employer. We also may in the future be subject to claims that we have caused such individual to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement or from former employers or other third parties claiming to have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. We may not be successful in defending these claims, and if we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. In addition, we may lose personnel as a result of such claims and any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our drug candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and reputational loss and distract our management and other employees from their regular responsibilities. In addition, although it is our policy to require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Moreover, even when we obtain agreements assigning intellectual property to us, such assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Furthermore, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual. In addition, we or our licensors may in the future be subject to claims by former employees, consultants or other third parties asserting an ownership right in our owned or licensed patents or patent applications. An adverse determination in any such litigation or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and drug candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our drug candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our owned or licensed patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future drug candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 73 We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, the patents of our licensors, or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, the patents of our licensors or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which, regardless of merit, can be expensive, time-consuming, unpredictable and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke those parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents or other intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. Grounds for a validity challenge could include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description, non-enablement or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our drug candidates or prevent third parties from competing with our drug candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the patent examiner and we or our licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our drug candidates. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our future patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse result in any litigation or proceeding involving our patents or patent applications may put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks. Even if we successfully assert our patents or other intellectual property rights, a court may not award remedies that sufficiently compensate us for our losses. For example, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. The impact of public announcements of the results of hearings related to such awards on the price of our common stock may be uncertain. If securities analysts or investors perceive such results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Some of our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel for significant periods of time during such litigation could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other drug candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our drug candidates to market. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 74 During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions and other interim proceedings or developments in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing drug candidates, approved products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our drug candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may not be able to pursue or guarantee protection of our intellectual property rights in jurisdictions outside the United States. Patents are of national or regional effect. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on drug candidates, research programs and technology in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. In some cases, we may not be able to obtain patent protection for certain technology and drug candidates outside the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do pursue patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we do pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors or other third parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our drug candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, may not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if pursued and obtained, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. In Europe, beginning June 1, 2023, European applications and patents may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Also, European applications will have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC. This will be a significant change in European patent practice. As the UPC is a new court system, there is very little precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. As a single court system can invalidate a European patent, we, where applicable, may opt out of the UPC, and as such, each European patent would need to be challenged in each individual country. 75 Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent offices, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements. Periodic maintenance, renewal and annuity fees and various other government fees on any issued patent and/or patent application are due to be paid to the USPTO and patent offices in foreign countries in several stages over the lifetime of the patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and patent offices in various foreign countries require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar requirements during the patent application process and throughout the life of a granted patent. Although an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of a patent or patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors or other third parties might be able to enter the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and competitive position. We may become subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property. We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our drug candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed. In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and drug candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, and confidentiality agreements to maintain our competitive position. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. 76 Trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets, proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems; however, such systems and security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes and even in cases we have, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or used in an unauthorized manner by third parties. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. Furthermore, despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is expensive, time-consuming and difficult to prove and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside of the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. As a result, we could lose our trade secrets and third parties could use our trade secrets to compete with our drug candidates and technology. Moreover, our competitors or other third parties may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third parties, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third parties, our competitive position would be harmed. Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats. The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: • others may be able to make products that are similar to any drug candidates we may develop or utilize similar technology but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or license now or in the future, or may develop drug candidates for the diseases our drug candidates seek to treat that do not infringe on our intellectual property rights, but which perform better or are more successful than our drug candidates; • drug candidates utilizing issued patents and other intellectual property that we hold may prove to be ineffective for their intended treatment or we may not obtain regulatory approval for such drug candidates; • we, or our current or future license partners or collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we own or license now or in the future; • we, or our current or future license partners or collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions; • others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our owned or licensed intellectual property rights; • it is possible that our pending owned patent applications or those that we may own or license in the future will not lead to issued patents; • we cannot predict the scope of protection of any patent issuing based on our patent applications, including whether the patent applications that we own will result in issued patents with claims directed to our drug candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries; • the claims of any current patents or patent issuing based on patent applications that we own may not provide protection against competitors or any competitive advantages or may be challenged by third parties; • issued patents that we may hold rights to in the future may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors; • our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets; • we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; 77 • there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful, as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; • countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than those upheld by U.S. courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop and market competing drug candidates; • we may need to initiate litigation or administrative proceedings to enforce and/or defend our patent rights which will be costly whether we win or lose; • if we enforce and/or defend our patent rights, a court may not hold that our patents are valid, enforceable and infringed; • we may choose not to file a patent application in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent application covering such intellectual property; • we may fail to adequately protect and police our trademarks and trade secrets; and • the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business, including if others obtain patents claiming subject matter similar to or improving subject matter that is covered by our patent applications. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Marketing of Our Drug Candidates The regulatory approval process of the FDA and other national or European regulators is lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain marketing approval for our drug candidates, our business will be substantially harmed. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and other national or European regulators is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a drug candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained marketing approval for any drug candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing drug candidates, or any drug candidates we may seek to develop in the future, will ever obtain marketing approval. Our drug candidates could be delayed or fail to receive marketing approval for many reasons, including the following: • the FDA may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials; • the FDA may disagree with the design or implementation of our planned clinical trials; • data collected from clinical trials of our drug candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA to the FDA or other submissions necessary to obtain marketing approval in the United States; • we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that a drug candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication; • the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA for approval; • we may be unable to demonstrate that our drug candidates’ clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks; • the FDA may find deficiencies with or fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and • the approval policies or regulations of the FDA may significantly change, including in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval or otherwise impacting the FDA’s review process and timing or requirements. This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our drug candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process, and in determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our drug candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our drug candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA. 78 In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our drug candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a drug candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that drug candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our drug candidates. We have received Fast Track designation for bexobrutideg (NX-5948) and may seek Fast Track designation for other drug candidates in the future. Fast Track designation may not lead to faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our drug candidates will receive marketing approval. In January 2024, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for bexobrutideg in the United States for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma after at least two lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitory and a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and in December 2024, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for bexobrutideg in the United States for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory Waldenström macroglobulinemia after at least two lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. As part of our business strategy, we may also seek Fast Track designation for other of our drug candidates. Programs with Fast Track designation may be eligible for more frequent interactions with the FDA, and, if relevant criteria are met, eligibility for Accelerated Approval and Priority Review. Fast Track designation applies to the drug candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular drug candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot guarantee that the FDA would decide to grant it. If a drug candidate receives Fast Track designation but does not continue to meet the criteria for Fast Track designation, or if our clinical trials are delayed, suspended or terminated, or put on clinical hold due to unexpected adverse events or issues with clinical supply, we will not receive the benefits associated with the Fast Track program. Furthermore, Fast Track designation does not change the standards for approval. The receipt of Fast Track designation for a drug candidate may not result in a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to drug candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if any drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation, the FDA may later decide that the drug candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for FDA Priority Review. Under FDA policies, a drug candidate is eligible for Priority Review, or review within a six-month time frame from the time a complete NDA is accepted for filing, if the drug candidate provides a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of serious conditions compared to available therapies. The FDA determines whether a drug qualifies for Priority Review after an NDA for such drug is submitted to the FDA. Therefore, until we submit NDAs for our drug candidates, we cannot be assured that they will be granted Priority Review. Even if Priority Review is granted for one of our drug candidates, the FDA does not always meet its six-month goal date for Priority Review, and the review process may be extended if the FDA requests additional information or clarification. 79 We may submit an NDA for our drug candidates under the Accelerated Approval pathway. If we are unable to obtain approval of our drug candidates through the Accelerated Approval Program in the United States, we may be required to conduct additional nonclinical and clinical studies and trials beyond those that we currently contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, reduce the likelihood of obtaining and/or delay the timing of obtaining, necessary marketing approval. Even if we receive approval from the FDA through the Accelerated Approval Program, if our confirmatory postmarketing trial does not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous postmarketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw the approval. We may submit an NDA for one or more of our drug candidates seeking approval through the Accelerated Approval Pathway. For any approval to market a drug product, we must provide the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies with clinical data that adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product for the indication applied for in the NDA or other respective regulatory filings. The Accelerated Approval Program is one of several approaches used by the FDA to make prescription drugs more rapidly available for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. Section 506(c) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) provides that the FDA may grant Accelerated Approval to “a product for a serious or life-threatening condition 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.” Approval through the Accelerated Approval Program is subject, however, to the requirement that the applicant conduct additional postmarketing clinical trials to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit, where there is uncertainty as to the relationship of the surrogate endpoint to the clinical benefit, or of the observed clinical endpoint to ultimate outcome. Typically, clinical benefit is verified when postmarketing clinical trials show that the drug provides a clinically meaningful positive therapeutic effect, that is, an effect on how a patient feels, functions, or survives. The FDA may require that these studies be underway prior to Accelerated Approval pursuant to the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 and under the FDA’s draft guidance on “Accelerated Approval and Considerations for Determining Whether a Confirmatory Trial is Underway” made available in January 2025. If such confirmatory trials fail to confirm the drug’s clinical profile or risks and benefits, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug. The FDA has broad discretion with regard to approval through the Accelerated Approval Program, and even if we believe that the Accelerated Approval Program is appropriate for one of our drug candidates, we cannot assure you that the FDA will ultimately agree. The FDA may also change its policies with respect to Accelerated Approval over time. For example, in March 2023, the FDA announced the availability of draft guidance on “Clinical Trial Considerations to Support Accelerated Approval of Oncology Therapeutics,” in which the agency outlined, and invited public comment on, its “preferred approach” of randomized controlled trials, including those that provide for longer term follow-up that could fulfill a postmarketing requirement to verify clinical benefit. In that draft guidance, the FDA acknowledged that historically, single-arm trial designs and response endpoints have most commonly been used in oncology but noted that such trials have limitations. Furthermore, even if we do obtain approval through the Accelerated Approval Program, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Even if the FDA reviews an NDA seeking Accelerated Approval, there can be no assurance that approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA may disagree that the design of, or results from, our studies support Accelerated Approval. Additionally, the FDA could require us to conduct further studies or trials prior to granting approval of any type, including by determining that approval through the Accelerated Approval Program is not appropriate and that our clinical trials may not be used to support approval through the conventional pathway. We might not be able to fulfill the FDA’s requirements in a timely manner, which would cause delays, or approval might not be granted because our submission is deemed incomplete by the FDA. There also can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue approval through the Accelerated Approval Program. A failure to obtain approval through the Accelerated Approval Program could result in a longer time period to obtain approval of our drug candidates, could increase the cost of their development, could delay our ability to commercialize our products and could significantly harm our financial position and competitive position in the marketplace. Even if we receive approval for one or more of our drug candidates through the Accelerated Approval Program, we will be subject to rigorous postmarketing requirements, including the completion of one or more confirmatory postmarketing trials as the FDA may require, to verify the clinical benefit of the product, and submission to the FDA of all promotional materials prior to their dissemination. The FDA could seek to withdraw the approval for multiple reasons, including if we fail to conduct any required confirmatory postmarketing trial with due diligence, our confirmatory postmarketing trial does not confirm the predicted clinical benefit, other evidence shows that the product is not safe or effective under the conditions of use, or we disseminate promotional materials that are found by the FDA to be false and misleading. 80 Moreover, Congress is considering potential changes to the Accelerated Approval Program that could impact our ability to obtain Accelerated Approval, or increase the burdens associated with postmarketing requirements in the event we do obtain Accelerated Approval. In particular, the FDA must specify certain conditions for required postapproval studies for products that receive Accelerated Approval, which may include enrollment targets and milestones, including the target date for study completion, by the time the drug is approved. The FDA may also require postapproval studies to be underway at the time of Accelerated Approval or within a specified time period following Accelerated Approval for such drugs, and must explain any instances where it does not require such studies. The FDA’s January 2025 draft guidance on “Accelerated Approval and Considerations for Determining Whether a Confirmatory Trial is Underway,” while not finalized, suggests that the FDA generally intends to consider a confirmatory trial to be “underway” prior to accelerated approval if (1) the trial has a target completion date that is consistent with diligent and timely conduct of the trial, considering the nature of the trial’s design and objectives, (2) the sponsor’s progress and plans for postapproval conduct of the trial provide sufficient assurance to expect timely completion of the trial, and (3) enrollment of the confirmatory trial has been initiated. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, approval through the Accelerated Approval Program, or any issues in maintaining approval granted under the Accelerated Approval Program, would delay or prevent commercialization of our products, and would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We, as a company, have limited experience in filing for and obtaining regulatory approval to initiate a clinical trial, and we do not have experience completing any pivotal clinical trials or in manufacturing or in quality assurance in order to market a new drug in the United States or in any other jurisdiction. As a company, we have limited experience in filing for or obtaining regulatory approval to initiate clinical trials, we do not have experience completing any pivotal clinical trials and we rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. We also do not have experience in manufacturing or in quality assurance in order to market a new drug and expect to rely on CROs or other third-party consultants or vendors to assist us in this process. Our inexperience may result in failure to or delays in obtaining the required regulatory approvals to initiate clinical trials, to successfully complete clinical trials and to obtain marketing approval for our drug candidates. If we are unable to obtain regulatory and marketing approval for our drug candidates or experience significant delays in our efforts to do so, our business could be substantially harmed. Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our drug candidates from being marketed abroad and may limit our ability to generate revenue from product sales. To market and sell our drug candidates in jurisdictions outside the United States, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approvals from foreign regulatory authorities may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, we must secure product reimbursement approvals before regulatory authorities will approve the product for sale in that country. Failure to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis or non-compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our drug candidates in certain countries. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue. Due to the UK’s exit from the EU, the UK is now being treated as a “third country” by the EU. Although UK legislation has retained existing EU law, new UK legislation is being drafted and the UK has not retained new EU law, including the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014. This means that some regulatory activities, such as batch testing and Qualified Person certification, conducted in the UK are no longer recognized in the EU; although the UK accepts the batch testing data carried out in many third countries with recognized equivalent high standards to avoid delays and supply disruption due to re-testing. However, the UK and EU have concluded a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which has been approved by the UK Parliament, European Council and European Parliament and has limited the disruption to the supply of medicines, particularly by enabling tariff and quota-free trade between the UK and the EU (provided that the rules of origin requirements are met), and has streamlined some issues, for example by enabling mutual recognition of cGMP inspections and certificates. The regulatory framework for medicines that existed before the end of the transition period has also effectively been preserved in UK domestic legislation as “retained EU law.” By retaining a snapshot of EU legislation at its core, the UK has prevented substantial divergence in the regulation of medicines (although divergence has appeared in some areas). The UK government reached a new agreement with the EU, the “Windsor Framework,” which amended the Northern Ireland Protocol, pursuant to which, the EU pharmaceutical legal framework acquis continued to apply to Northern Ireland. According to the Windsor Framework, medicinal products intended for the 81 UK market including Northern Ireland will be authorized by the MHRA and must bear a “UK only” label. This means that medicinal products placed on the market in Northern Ireland no longer need to be compliant with EU law. These new measures were implemented beginning January 1, 2025. The TCA allows for future deviation from the current regulatory framework, and it is not known if and/or when any deviations may occur, which may have an impact on development, manufacture, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products. It is also important to note that obtaining a marketing authorization is not sufficient to gain effective access to the market in the EU and in the UK; companies still need to agree to a reimbursement price for the products and in some jurisdictions, such as the UK and Germany, a further positive recommendation from health technology on cost-effectiveness is required for the products to be actually prescribed and reimbursed by the respective national health systems (see “—Governments outside of the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues from the sales of drugs, if any” below). If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and thus do not receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced, our ability to realize the full market potential of our drug candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, or at all. Our failure to obtain approval of any of our drug candidates by regulatory authorities in another country may significantly diminish the commercial prospects of that drug candidate and our business prospects could decline. Even if we, or any collaborators, obtain marketing approvals for our drug candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue. Once marketing approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. We, and any collaborators, must therefore comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our drug candidates for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling. Thus, we, and any collaborators, will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved. In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, EMA, MHRA and other regulatory requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, our third-party manufacturers, and any collaborators and their third-party manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our drug candidates, we, any collaborators, and our respective third-party manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we, and any collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and any collaborators, could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or any collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Any drug candidate for which we, or any collaborators, obtain marketing approval could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we, or any collaborators, may be subject to substantial penalties if we, or they, fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we, or they, experience unanticipated problems with our products when and if any of them are approved. Any drug candidate for which we, or any collaborators, obtain marketing approval, as well as the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA, EMA, the MHRA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, tracking and tracing, serialization, postmarket adverse event reporting and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a drug candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement REMS. New cancer drugs frequently are indicated only for patient populations that have not responded to an existing therapy or have relapsed. If any of our drug candidates receive marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug in this way, which could limit sales of the product. 82 Clinical trials of our drug candidates must be conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials, or those of any future collaborator, may indicate an apparent positive effect of a drug candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If one or more of our drug candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed, or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, or if i