Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

Item 1. Business Our Corporate History and Background The Company (formerly known as Selecta Biosciences, Inc., or Selecta) was incorporated in Delaware on December 10, 2007, and is headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland. On November 13, 2023, the Company and the Delaware corporation which, immediately prior to the Merger (as defined below), was known as Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc., or Old Cartesian, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, by and among the Company, Sakura Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or First Merger Sub, Sakura Merger Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or Second Merger Sub, and Old Cartesian. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and simultaneously with execution thereof, (i) First Merger Sub merged with and into Old Cartesian, pursuant to which Old Cartesian was the surviving corporation, or the First Step Surviving Corporation, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or the First Merger, and (ii) immediately following the First Merger, Old Cartesian (as the First Step Surviving Corporation) merged with and into Second Merger Sub, pursuant to which Second Merger Sub was the surviving company, or the Surviving Company, and continued under the name “Cartesian Bio, LLC”, or the Second Merger and, together with the First Merger, the Merger. In connection with the Merger and pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company (which was known as Selecta Biosciences, Inc. until immediately prior to the Merger) changed its corporate name to Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc. Overview We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing mRNA cell therapies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We leverage our proprietary technology and manufacturing platform to introduce one or more mRNA molecules into cells to enhance their function. Unlike DNA, mRNA degrades naturally over time without integrating into the cell’s genetic material. Therefore, our mRNA cell therapies are distinguished by their capacity to be dosed repeatedly like conventional drugs, administered in an outpatient setting, and given without pre-treatment chemotherapy required with many conventional cell therapies. In an open-label Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes disabling muscle weakness and fatigue, we observed that our lead product candidate, Descartes-08, generated a deep and durable clinical benefit. Autoimmune diseases, where the immune system mistakenly attacks the body, are a family of more than 80 disorders. Autoimmune diseases are typically treated with immunosuppressant medications, such as steroids. These treatments must be administered continually and carry risks, including infection, osteoporosis, and metabolic disease. Newer agents that block the complement pathway or inhibit the neonatal Fc receptor, or FcRn, must also typically be administered continually. We believe there is a significant unmet need for outpatient treatments, completed over a short period of time, that provide deep, durable clinical benefit. Cell therapies have the potential to provide this benefit, but conventional cell therapies that use DNA are associated with toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, transformation to cancer, and death. Further, conventional cell therapies typically require pre-treatment with chemotherapy, which suppresses the immune system and increases the risk of infection, anemia, and neurotoxicity. As a result, conventional DNA cell therapies typically require close monitoring in an inpatient setting, increasing the total cost of care and generally limiting their reach to only the sickest patients. We believe our mRNA cell therapies have the potential to deliver deep, durable clinical benefit to a broad group of patients with autoimmune diseases because they can be administered over a short period of time, in an outpatient setting, and without pre-treatment chemotherapy. We are leveraging our proprietary technology and manufacturing platform, RNA Armory ® , to develop mRNA cell therapies for autoimmune diseases across three modalities. Our mRNA CAR-T modality is a personalized approach that collects a patient’s T-cells and uses mRNA to introduce a chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, into the cell. The CAR redirects the T-cells to target and destroy pathogenic self-reactive cells. Our mRNA MSC modality is an allogeneic approach that introduces one or more mRNAs into donor-sourced mesenchymal stem cells, or MSCs, enabling them to produce proteins that target key pathways involved in autoimmunity. These cells are banked and are designed to be administered off-the-shelf to any patient. Our mRNA in situ modality is designed to deliver mRNA into a patient’s lymph node to generate CAR-T cells and other proteins that target autoimmunity . The figure below illustrates each modality. 6 Table of Contents The table below summarizes key information about our development pipeline. Our lead product candidate, Descartes-08, is an autologous mRNA CAR-T directed against the B cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, that we are developing for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for the treatment of MG. Descartes-08 was observed to be safe and well-tolerated in a Phase 1b/2a trial of 14 patients with MG who received outpatient treatment without pre-treatment chemotherapy. All seven participants who received six once-weekly infusions at the highest dose continued to experience marked and long-lasting clinical improvement across validated MG disease scoring systems at month nine follow-up. At month 12, five of these seven participants maintained clinically meaningful improvement. One participant, who lost response after one year, experienced rapid improvement in clinical scores after re-treatment, which was ongoing at month six of follow-up. Clinical responses correlated with large reductions in autoantibody titers. We are currently enrolling in a Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with MG, for which we expect to report topline results in mid-2024. We are also developing Descartes-08 for the treatment of other autoimmune diseases. We have received FDA allowance for our investigational new drug application, or IND, for a Phase 2 trial of Descartes-08 for the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, or SLE, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes systemic inflammation affecting multiple organ systems. We expect this Phase 2 trial to initiate in the first half of 2024. Descartes-15 is our next-generation autologous anti-BCMA mRNA CAR-T. In preclinical studies, we have observed Descartes-15 to be 10-fold more potent than Descartes-08. We intend to test the safety of Descartes-15 in an open label, single-arm Phase 1 trial in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. This program has already received IND allowance from the FDA and is expected to enroll the first patient in the first half of 2024. We expect that these Phase 1 trial data will inform our clinical development plan for Descartes-15 in autoimmune diseases. 7 Table of Contents Descartes-33 is an allogeneic mRNA MSC in preclinical development for treatment of autoimmune diseases. We are developing Descartes-33 to deliver a combination of therapeutic proteins that target key drivers in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity. Limitations of Current DNA-Based Cell Therapy Treatments in Autoimmune Disease Conventional DNA cell therapies have been associated with cytokine release syndrome, neurological toxicities and Parkinsonism, infection, risk of secondary malignancy, and death. The acute toxicities are from exponential amplification of the modified cell, and the pre-treatment chemotherapy administered to enable cell amplification. Conventional DNA-engineered CAR-T cells are in clinical development for several autoimmune diseases. DNA CAR-T cells are typically administered to patients in a subtherapeutic dose, which means that the cells must proliferate to reach therapeutic numbers in the body. However, this proliferation is not controlled in magnitude or duration, varies from patient to patient, and can be unpredictable. This proliferation occurs because the CAR gene is irreversibly integrated into the T-cell’s genome, causing a cascade in which every daughter cell carries the same CAR as the parent cells. The resulting unconstrained proliferation frequently exceeds the toxicity threshold, leading to serious adverse events. In November 2023, the FDA announced that it is investigating the risk of T-cell malignancies in approved DNA CAR-T cell immunotherapies. The proliferation of DNA CAR-T cells has typically required pre-treatment chemotherapy, usually fludarabine and cyclophosphamide administered for several days before CAR-T cell treatment. This chemotherapy is toxic, suppressing the immune system and increasing the risk of infection, anemia, and neurotoxicity. Given these risks and requirements, conventional DNA cell therapies are administered under close monitoring in an inpatient setting, increasing their cost and limiting their reach to only the sickest patients. Our Autoimmune Disease Solution We believe that mRNA cell therapy has the potential to be a potent yet safer alternative to DNA cell therapy for treating autoimmune diseases. We believe the mRNA cell therapies we are developing have the potential to deliver deep, durable clinical benefit to many patients with autoimmune diseases because they can be administered over a short period of time, in an outpatient setting, and without pre-treatment chemotherapy. These attributes may extend the reach and potential of mRNA cell therapy to a broader group of patients with autoimmunity. mRNA CAR-T cells locate their target, become activated, and proliferate like DNA CAR-T cells. However, because mRNA does not replicate and degrades naturally over time, the maximum number of mRNA molecules can be determined by the dose. The actual number of mRNA molecules declines to zero over time. The number of mRNA molecules determines the degree of CAR protein expression, and the persistence of the mRNA molecules determines the duration of mRNA CAR-T cell activity. Thus, unlike DNA CAR-T cells, our mRNA CAR-T cells provide pharmacokinetic control. In other words, a patient’s exposure to our cells is determined by the dose. The time, course and duration of that exposure are substantially determined by the nature of the mRNA we use. Therefore, while DNA CAR-T therapies are administered at subtherapeutic levels, we can administer a therapeutic number of mRNA CAR-T cells and re-dose these cells over time, much like a conventional drug. Because the mRNA cannot be replicated, we believe, and have thus far observed, that mRNA CAR-T cells do not cause the types of severe toxicity associated with DNA CAR-T cells. Also, because mRNA CAR-T is dosed at a therapeutic dose and does not rely on cell proliferation to reach the therapeutic window, there is no need to administer pre-treatment chemotherapy. The graphs below contrast our mRNA cell therapy approach with that of conventional DNA cell therapy. As of the 2023 safety cutoff date, we have administered Descartes-08 to over 60 patients suffering from one of MG, multiple myeloma, and other diseases in open-label trials on an outpatient basis, many at community clinics. We have not observed product-related cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity or infection of any grade. The most common product-related 8 Table of Contents adverse events observed—headache, nausea and fever—were self-limited and resolved within 72 hours of onset. One participant with MG with a history of allergic reaction to biologics developed hives after the third infusion and was hospitalized for monitoring. The patient’s hives resolved completely after a brief course of steroids. Our Product Candidates Descartes-08 Our lead product candidate is Descartes-08, a potential first-in-class mRNA CAR-T. Descartes-08 targets BCMA, which exists on the surface of long-lived plasma cells, or LLPCs, and plasmacytoid dendritic cells, or pDCs. LLPCs, which can survive for decades, are the main producers of disease-causing autoantibodies. pDCs, which secrete type-I interferons, may also play a critical role in autoimmunity. While the lead indication for Descartes-08 is MG, we believe that Descartes-08 has potential to treat other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus. Descartes-08 for the Treatment of MG Overview Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for the treatment of MG. We chose MG as our lead indication because the pathogenesis for MG is common to many autoimmune diseases. Background Information About MG MG is a rare autoimmune disease that causes debilitating muscle weakness and fatigue. It is estimated to affect over 120,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe. MG patients develop antibodies that lead to an immunological attack on critical signaling proteins at the junction between nerve and muscle cells, thereby inhibiting the ability of nerves to communicate properly with muscles. This results in muscle weakness in tissues throughout the body, potentially manifesting in partial paralysis of eye movements, problems in chewing and swallowing, respiratory problems, speech difficulties and weakness in skeletal muscles. The symptoms of the disease can be transient and in the early stages of the disease can remit spontaneously. However, as the disease progresses, symptom-free periods become less frequent and disease exacerbations can last for months. Disease symptoms reach their maximum levels within two to three years in approximately 80% of patients. Up to 20% of MG patients experience a respiratory crisis at least once in their lives. During the crisis phase, decline in respiratory function can become life-threatening. Patients in crisis often require intubation and mechanical ventilation. There are no known cures for MG and the current standard of care consists of chronic use of steroids and other immunosuppressants. These treatments must be administered continually and carry risks such as infection, osteoporosis, and metabolic diseases. Newer agents, such as those that block the complement pathway or inhibit FcRn, are typically administered continually. Clinical Development To date, we have completed the Phase 1b portion of the Phase 1/2 trial of Descartes-08 in MG, as well as the primary readout of the Phase 2a portion of the trial. We continue to enroll patients to the Phase 2b portion of the trial. The primary objective of the Phase 1b portion of the trial was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of Descartes-08 for patients with MG. To assess the safety and manufacturability of Descartes-08, the product candidate was administered in three ascending doses (3.5 x10 6 cells/kg; 17.5 x10 6 cells; 52.5 x10 6 cells/kg) to three patients with MG. After each infusion, patients were observed for at least one week, and a higher dose level was administered if there were no significant adverse effects observed at the initial dose. We observed Descartes-08 to be well-tolerated by the three patients who participated in this portion of the trial with no cytokine release syndrome or other serious product-related adverse events. The primary objective of the Phase 2a portion of the trial was to determine the optimal dosing schedule for patients with MG using the highest dose level tested in Phase 1b (52.5 x10 6 cells/kg). This portion of the trial was designed to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of Descartes-08 when administered across three different treatment schedules (six doses given twice-weekly, once-weekly, or once-monthly). This portion of the trial evaluated 11 patients with particularly advanced disease as assessed by both patient and clinician-reported outcomes. 79% of the 14 patients included in the Phase 1b and Phase 2a portions of the trial were classified at screening to have Class III or IV disease, as defined by the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, indicating they have moderate-to-severe weakness affecting their muscles. The results of the Phase 2a portion of the trial, published in the Lancet Neurology in July 2023, indicated that after six weekly infusions of Descartes-08, the average improvement in all disease severity scores was three-to-five-fold greater than what is considered clinically meaningful by expert consensus. As shown in the figure below, clinical improvements persisted in all patients at month nine, and in five of the seven remaining patients at a final, 12-month follow-up. Of the two participants who lost response, one was retreated and experienced rapid improvement in clinical scores, which was ongoing at month six of 9 Table of Contents follow-up. Descartes-08 was observed to be well-tolerated with no reports of dose-limiting toxicities, cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity. A–C: Mean change from Baseline (line) and standard error (bands) in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score (MG-ADL, A), Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score (QMG, B), Myasthenia Gravis Composite Score (MGC, C) during 12 months of follow-up for MG-001 participants who received six once-weekly doses (n=7). MG-ADL is self-reported; MGC and QMG are neurologist-assessed. D: Change from Baseline in MGC Score after initial dosing and retreatment in a participant experiencing relapse at Month 12. E: Relative change in serum anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody levels in the three participants with detectable antibodies at baseline. Each line represents one patient. All three participants with detectable anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody levels before treatment had an average 42% reduction in antibody levels by month six. These reductions deepened to 68% by month nine and persisted at month 12. In summary, we observed continued clinical improvement and autoantibody reductions after BCMA-directed mRNA CAR-T treatment for MG that persisted through the one-year follow-up period. We are currently enrolling patients in the Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the Phase 1/2 trial. We expect to report topline results in mid-2024. The trial, which is expected to have at least 30 completers, is designed to assess the primary endpoint of the proportion of patients achieving a five-point or greater reduction in their MGC score at day 85. Patients will receive six weekly infusions at the dose established in Phase 1b (52.5 x10 6 cells/kg). The trial also involves a crossover component, in which any patient originally assigned to placebo will be given the opportunity to receive Descartes-08 after completing trial treatment. Secondary endpoints are designed to assess a variety of additional clinical outcomes, including determining safety and tolerability, quantifying the clinical effect of Descartes-08 over one year, assessing changes through day 85 in QMG, MG QoL 15R, MG Composite and MG post-intervention status and comparing the effect of Descartes-08 versus placebo on MG scales through day 85 in patients who cross over from placebo to Descartes-08. Descartes-08 for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Overview We are also developing Descartes-08 for the treatment of SLE, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes systemic inflammation which affects multiple organ systems. Background Information About Systemic Lupus Erythematosus SLE is a chronic, immune-mediated connective tissue disease that can impact nearly all major organ systems. The most common manifestations of SLE are cutaneous and musculoskeletal symptoms, although neurological, gastrointestinal, hematological, and renal symptoms are regularly observed as well. Patients with SLE are at a substantially increased risk of 10 Table of Contents infection and cardiovascular disease, contributing to estimated 10- and 15-year mortality rates of 9% and 15%, respectively. SLE is the most common form of lupus, representing approximately 70% of lupus patients, and approximately three million adults worldwide are estimated to have SLE. Next Steps We expect to initiate a multi-center open-label single-arm Phase 2 trial, for which we have received FDA IND allowance, in the first half of 2024. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and manufacturing feasibility of Descartes-08 mRNA CAR-T cells administered as six once-weekly outpatient infusions of 52.5x10 6 cells/kg without pre-treatment chemotherapy in approximately 30 patients with SLE. Descartes-15 Descartes-15 is a next-generation, autologous anti-BCMA mRNA CAR-T. Using our proprietary technology and manufacturing platform, we designed Descartes-15 to be more resistant than Descartes-08 to recycling of the CAR upon multiple antigen exposures. We believe this is a particularly important feature to increase the durability of CAR expression on the surface of these cells. We observed that Descartes-15 was 10-fold more potent than Descartes-08 in preclinical studies, as illustrated in the below charts. In November 2023, we received IND allowance from the FDA to initiate the Phase 1 trial to test the safety of Descartes-15 in patients with multiple myeloma. Next Steps We intend to leverage our preclinical and clinical observations from the Descartes-08 development program and the Descartes-15 Phase 1 program to inform our clinical strategy for Descartes-15 for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Allogeneic Product Candidate Descartes-33 is our allogeneic mRNA MSC in preclinical development for treatment of autoimmune diseases. We are developing Descartes-33 to deliver a combination of therapeutic proteins that target key drivers in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity. 11 Table of Contents Manufacturing We have established wholly owned internal manufacturing and research and development capabilities, which allow us to optimize processes rapidly and in an iterative manner. Our main manufacturing facility is located in Gaithersburg, Maryland and operates under current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP. This facility enhances our control of product quality and production schedules and costs, allowing us to move assets from discovery to preclinical to clinical development quickly. We also entered into an agreement to lease additional manufacturing space located in Frederick, Maryland to transition and expand our clinical and commercial manufacturing capabilities for our maturing pipeline of innovative mRNA cell therapies for the treatment of autoimmune disease. Our cGMP cell manufacturing facilities, with their dedicated quality management system, are also capable of mRNA production used in Descartes-08. We manufacture Descartes-08 in-house and are typically able to process and release lots for infusion within approximately three weeks. Our autologous cell therapy product candidates, including Descartes-08, are manufactured on a patient-by-patient basis. We have optimized our manufacturing processes through over 200 cGMP runs. We also maintain FDA-reviewed human umbilical cord MSC cell collection and banking operations. Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, defend and enforce proprietary protection for our drug candidates and other discoveries, inventions, trade secrets and know-how that are critical to our business operations. Our success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary rights of others, and in part on our ability to prevent others from infringing, misappropriating or violating our proprietary rights. A discussion of risks relating to intellectual property is provided under the section titled “ Risk factors—Risks related to intellectual property.” We intend to continue developing intellectual property, and we intend to aggressively protect our position in key technologies. Our patents are focused on several key technologies, including the use of our mRNA CAR-T technology and other developments in our mRNA cell therapy pipeline. As of December 31, 2023, we had five issued patents worldwide, including two patents issued in the United States and three issued outside the United States. Our patents are set to expire on various dates in 2040 through 2043. Additionally, as of December 31, 2023, we had 14 patent applications pending worldwide, including five U.S. applications and nine applications outside the United States. In addition, we had two registered marks protecting our brand and prospective products both domestically and internationally. With respect to the legacy Selecta assets, as of December 31, 2023, we had (i) 233 issued patents worldwide, including 20 patents issued in the United States and 213 issued outside the United States, set to expire on various dates in 2032 through 2043, (ii) 476 patent applications pending worldwide, including 42 U.S. applications and 434 applications outside the United States and (iii) two registered marks. In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how, trademarks, confidential information, other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen 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 proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees, consultants, contractors and collaborators, 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 and invention assignment agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. However, such confidentiality agreements can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “ Risk factors—Risks related to intellectual property .” Key Agreements Biogen License Agreement On September 8, 2023, we entered into a non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, perpetual patent license agreement, or the Biogen Agreement, with Biogen MA, Inc, or Biogen, to research, develop, make, use, offer, sell and import products or processes containing or using an engineering T-cell modified with an mRNA comprising, or encoding a protein comprising, certain sequences licensed under the Biogen Agreement for the prevention, treatment, palliation and management of autoimmune diseases and disorders, excluding cancers, neoplastic disorders, and paraneoplastic disorders. We are not obligated to pay Biogen any expenses, fees, or royalties. We may terminate the Biogen Agreement for any reason or no reason, and Biogen may terminate the agreement after a notice-and-cure period of 30 days if we fail to pay a fee owed to Biogen or for any other material breach of the agreement. The Biogen Agreement will otherwise expire when all claims of all issued patents within the patents and patent applications licensed 12 Table of Contents to us under the Biogen Agreement have expired or been finally rendered revoked, invalid or unenforceable by a decision of a court or government agency. NCI License Agreement Effective September 16, 2019, we entered into a nonexclusive, worldwide license agreement, or the NCI Agreement, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, or NCI. Under the NCI Agreement, we were granted a license under certain NCI patents and patent applications designated in the agreement, to make, use, sell, offer and import products and processes within the scope of the patents and applications licensed under the NCI Agreement when developing and manufacturing anti-BCMA CAR-T cell products for the treatment of MG, pemphigus vulgaris, and immune thrombocytopenic purpura according to methods designated in the NCI Agreement. In connection with our entry into the NCI Agreement, we paid to NCI a one-time $100,000 license royalty payment. Under the NCI Agreement, we are further required to pay NCI a low five-digit annual royalty. We must also pay earned royalties on net sales in a low single-digit percentage and pay up to $0.8 million in benchmark royalties upon our achievement of designated benchmarks that are based on the commercial development plan agreed between the parties. Under the NCI Agreement, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to bring licensed products and licensed processes to the point of Practical Application (as defined in the NCI Agreement). Upon our first commercial sale, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to make licensed products and licensed processes reasonably accessible to the United States public. After our first commercial sale, we must make reasonable quantities of licensed products or materials produced via licensed processes available to patient assistance programs and develop educational materials detailing the licensed products. Unless we obtain a waiver from NCI, we must have licensed products and licensed processes manufactured substantially in the United States. Prior to the first commercial sale, upon NCI’s request, we are obligated to provide NCI with commercially reasonable quantities of licensed products made through licensed processes to be used for in vitro research. Additionally, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to initiate a Phase 3 clinical trial of a licensed product by the fourth quarter of 2024, submit a biologics license application, or BLA, with respect to a licensed product by the fourth quarter of 2026, and make a first commercial sale of a licensed product by the fourth quarter of 2028. The NCI Agreement terminates upon the expiration of the last to expire of the patent rights licensed thereunder, if not sooner terminated. NCI has the right to terminate this agreement, after giving written notice and providing a cure period in accordance with its terms, if we are in default of a material obligation. We have the unilateral right to terminate the agreement in any country or territory by giving NCI 60 days’ written notice. We agreed to indemnify NCI against any liability arising out of our, sublicensees’ or third parties’ use of the licensed patent rights and licensed products or licensed processes developed in connection with the licensed patent rights. Astellas License Agreement On January 8, 2023, we entered into a License and Development Agreement, or the Astellas Agreement, with Audentes Therapeutics, Inc., or Astellas. Under the Astellas Agreement, we granted Astellas an exclusive license to the Company’s IdeXork technology arising from Xork, to develop and commercialize Xork for use in Pompe disease in combination with an Astellas gene therapy investigational or authorized product. Xork, a bacterial IgG protease licensed from Genovis AB (publ.), or Genovis, is licensed pursuant to an Exclusive License Agreement with Genovis, or the Genovis Agreement. Astellas paid to us a $10.0 million upfront payment upon signing of the Astellas Agreement, and we are entitled to receive up to $340.0 million in future additional payments over the course of the partnership that are contingent on the achievement of various development and regulatory milestones and, if commercialized, sales thresholds for annual net sales where Xork is used as a pre-treatment for an Astellas investigational or authorized product. We are also eligible for tiered royalty payments ranging from low to high single digits. Any proceeds received from milestone payments or royalties relating to Xork would be required to be distributed to holders of CVRs, net of certain deductions. Pursuant to the Astellas Agreement, we will have the exclusive right and responsibility to complete research and development of Xork products and to conduct all preclinical studies and clinical trials for Xork for use in Pompe disease with an Astellas gene therapy investigational or authorized product, or the Xork Development Services. Astellas will reimburse us for 25% of all budgeted costs incurred to complete the development of Xork for use in Pompe disease with an Astellas gene therapy investigational or authorized product. We will have control and responsibility over regulatory filings, including any IND, BLA, and marketing authorization applications relating to the licensed product. Astellas will have the exclusive right and responsibility to research, develop, and commercialize Astellas products used in combination with Xork and will have control and responsibility over all regulatory filings, including any IND, BLA, and marketing authorization applications, relating to Astellas products and Astellas products used in combination with Xork. 13 Table of Contents Sobi License Agreement On June 11, 2020, we entered into a License and Development Agreement with Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (Publ), or Sobi, which was amended on October 31, 2023, or, as so amended, the Sobi License. Pursuant to the Sobi License, we agreed to grant Sobi an exclusive, worldwide (except as to Greater China) license to develop, manufacture and commercialize the SEL-212 drug candidate, which is currently in development for the treatment of chronic refractory gout. The SEL-212 drug candidate is a pharmaceutical composition containing a combination of SEL-037, or the Compound, and ImmTOR. Pursuant to the Sobi License, in consideration of the license, Sobi agreed to pay us a one-time, upfront payment of $75.0 million. Sobi has also agreed to make milestone payments totaling up to $630.0 million to us upon the achievement of various development and regulatory milestones and, if commercialized, sales thresholds for annual net sales of SEL-212, and tiered royalty payments ranging from the low double digits on the lowest sales tier to the high teens on the highest sales tier. Any proceeds received from milestone payments or royalties relating to the Sobi License would be required to be distributed to holders of CVRs, net of certain deductions. Pursuant to the Sobi License, we agreed to supply (at cost) quantities of the Compound and ImmTOR as necessary for completion of the two Phase 3 clinical trials of SEL-212 (DISSOLVE I and DISSOLVE II) and a six-month placebo extension. We were required to supply quantities of the Compound until all rights to the Compound and any materials needed to manufacture the Compound were transferred to Sobi, which transfer occurred upon the execution of Amendment No. 1 to the License and Development Agreement on October 31, 2023. Sobi agreed to reimburse us for all budgeted costs incurred to complete development of SEL-212, including but not limited to costs incurred while conducting and completing the Phase 3 DISSOLVE trials, except for any costs of additional development activities required that are related to ImmTOR and that are unrelated to SEL-212. Sobi will have control and responsibility over all regulatory filings, including any IND, BLA, and marketing authorization applications relating to the licensed product. The transactions contemplated by the Sobi License were consummated on July 28, 2020. Sobi may terminate the Sobi License for any reason upon 180 days’ written notice, whereby all rights granted under the Sobi License would revert back to us. In addition, if Sobi were to terminate the Sobi License, we have the option to obtain a license to all patents and know-how necessary to exploit SEL-212 in existence as of the termination date from Sobi in return for making an equitable royalty payment to Sobi. Competition The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of any other cell therapy product candidates that we develop, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are 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. 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 or biosimilar products. Descartes-08 may compete with products of other companies in the MG market, including Argenx SE, UCB S.A., Johnson & Johnson, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cabaletta Bio, Inc. Other companies developing CAR-T therapies include large, fully integrated pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis AG, Gilead Sciences, Inc., through its Kite Pharma, Inc. subsidiary, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AstraZeneca PLC and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and biopharmaceutical companies such as Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. and Cabaletta Bio, Inc. 14 Table of Contents Government Regulation Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. We believe our cell therapy product candidates are subject to regulation in the United States as “biologics” or “biological products”. We expect to seek approval of Descartes-08 through a single BLA reviewed by FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER. Biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Descartes-08 and any other product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. We regard our mRNA-modified products as cell therapy products and not as genetic engineering or gene therapy products, because mRNA modifications are not embodied in DNA or incorporated into a genome. However, it is possible that in some jurisdictions, regulations on genetic engineering or genetic therapy may intentionally or unintentionally apply to our technology. This could create additional regulatory burden. U.S. Biological Products Development Process The process required by the FDA before a biologic, including a cell therapy, may be marketed in the United States is summarized below. Biological product candidates are preclinically tested before any testing is done in humans. These tests, or non-clinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal requirements including good laboratory practices, or GLPs. The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, or other issues. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. In addition to these requirements, biological product candidates may also require evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at an institution participating in a clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, patient selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor patient safety. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations, including with respect to good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: Phase 1. The biological product candidate is evaluated in a limited population of patients or healthy volunteers to identify the maximum tolerated dose, recommended Phase 2 dose, possible adverse effects and safety risks. For the types of products and therapeutic areas we focus on, Phase 1 studies will generally be done in patients and not healthy volunteers. Phase 2. The biological product candidate is evaluated in a broader population to evaluate safety further and preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases, and to determine the optimal dosing schedule. Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Cell and gene therapy products may differ from the traditional clinical trial phases. For example, clinical trials for cell and gene therapy products are often structured as a hybrid Phase 1/2 study where a small group of participants with the disease are enrolled and both safety and efficacy tests are performed. 15 Table of Contents Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA or the sponsor or a separate data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical study at any time on various grounds. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients or otherwise in the interest of patient welfare. Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are also required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal trials, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain a pediatric assessment unless the applicant has obtained a waiver or deferral. Pediatric assessment contains data gathered from pediatric studies using appropriate formulations for each age group for which the assessment is required and other data adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors with an application for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, (or a deferral or waiver, as appropriate) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. Under the Prescription Drug Fee User Act, as amended, or PDUFA, each BLA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. Fee waiver or reductions are available under certain circumstances, including for the first application filed by a small business. In addition, no user fees are assessed on BLAs on products designated as orphan drugs unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of a BLA to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information before deciding whether to accept a BLA for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or otherwise not reviewable and may request additional information. If the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA substantively reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent, and manufactured in accordance with appropriate procedures and controls to ensure product quality. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a non-binding recommendation on approval. The FDA may waive the review by an advisory committee and is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it often follows such recommendations. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will review proposed product labeling and will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product candidate. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities in which the product is manufactured to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMPs. The FDA may also audit the clinical investigation sites to determine that they have complied with good clinical practices. Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately deny approval or seek additional information from the applicant. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the applicant interprets the same data. The FDA may also raise questions about product manufacturing and quality control. If the FDA denies approval of a BLA in its then-current form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter detailing deficiencies in the application. If a response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA is to review 90% of standard BLAs in 10 months from the filing date and 90% of priority BLAs in six months from the filing date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. Two additional months are added to these timelines for new molecular entities. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs. Orphan Designation Prior to the submission of a BLA, the FDA may grant orphan designation to drugs or biologics intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 16 Table of Contents individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and marketing the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. In the United States, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the "same drug" for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer with orphan exclusivity is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the approved orphan product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of MG. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA offers various programs, including the Fast Track program, Breakthrough Therapy designation, and the RMAT designation that are intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new biologic may request that the FDA designate the biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of treatment, diagnosis, or prevention compared to available therapies. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. The FDA may approve a product for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition based on a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a biological product subject to accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to confirm such benefit. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, added the failure to conduct post-approval studies with due diligence or to submit timely progress reports on such studies to the list of prohibited acts under the FD&C Act, which means that any such failures, whether they result from a sponsor’s actions or the actions of third parties, could provide the basis for enforcement actions. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval that promotional materials be submitted prior to use, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. In addition, under the provisions of The Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, the FDA established a Breakthrough Therapy Designation which is intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the features of Fast Track designation, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. Fast Track, priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designations do not change the standards for approval and may not necessarily expedite the development or approval process. In 2016, the 21 st Century Cures Act established what the FDA describes as a regenerative medicine adventure therapy, or RMAT, designation. The RMAT designation program is intended to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any product that meets the following criteria: (i) the product qualifies as an RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (ii) the product is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address 17 Table of Contents unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides all the benefits of Breakthrough Therapy Designation, including early interactions to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoints to be used to support accelerated approval, eligibility for rolling review and potential eligibility for priority review. Product candidates granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of clinical trial sites, including through expansion of trials to additional sites, as appropriate. Post-approval Requirements Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP requirements. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects and reporting updated safety and efficacy information. We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling, known as “off-label use”, and the requirement to balance information provided about a product’s benefits with important safety information. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions, expensive and onerous government investigations, and adverse publicity. Conventional DNA-modified CAR-T cell products have been subject to extensive post-approval surveillance requirements. Because the mRNA of our products is temporary, we do not believe that our mRNA-modified products will be subject to requirements of this nature, although other post-approval requirements will apply. Biosimilars and Exclusivity The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical study or studies. The FDA has approved a number of products under these provisions. To the Company’s knowledge, the definition of “biosimilar” with regard to an mRNA-modified cell therapy has not been expressly stated in statute, regulation, or guidance, and has not been reviewed by a court. The regulatory pathway for a biosimilar to one of our products thus remains somewhat uncertain. 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 exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. A biological product may also obtain pediatric exclusivity in the United States. For a biological product, pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study or studies. The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty. Government Regulation Outside of the United States Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in countries outside the United States prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. 18 Table of Contents In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is composed of the 27 member states of the European Union, or EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of MAs. The EU MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (comprising gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products), among others. The Centralized Procedure is optional for other products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for other products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. Under the Centralized Procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP). Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases. Under the accelerated procedure the standard 210 days review period is reduced to 150 days. National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this National MA can be recognized in another Member States through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the product has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized Procedure. To obtain regulatory approval of medical product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application, which is similar to the U.S. BLA. The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving marketing authorization, “new active substances” generally receive eight years of data exclusivity, which prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application, and an additional two years of market exclusivity, during which no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new active substance, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (i) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for certain financial and exclusivity incentives. For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. When conducting clinical trials in the EU, we must adhere to the provisions of the EU Clinical Trials Directive (Directive 2001/20/EC) and the laws and regulations of the EU Member States implementing them. These provisions require, among other things, that the prior authorization of an Ethics Committee and the competent Member State authority is obtained before commencing the clinical trial. In 2014, the EU passed the Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation 536/2014), which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive, to ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the EU. We are also subject to data privacy and security laws in the jurisdictions outside of the U.S. in which we are established, run clinical trials or in which we sell or market our products once approved. For example, in Europe we are subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR) in relation to our collection, control, processing and other use of personal data (i.e., data relating to an identifiable living individual). We process personal data in relation to participants in our clinical trials in the EEA, including the health and medical information of these participants. The GDPR is directly applicable in each EU Member State, however, it provides that EU Member States may introduce further conditions, including limitations which could limit our ability to collect, use and share personal data (including health and medical information), or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business. The GDPR 19 Table of Contents imposes accountability and transparency obligations regarding personal data. We are also subject to EU rules with respect to cross-border transfers of personal data out of the EU and EEA. We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those EU jurisdictions where we are established or otherwise subject to the GDPR. A breach of the GDPR could result in significant fines, regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/ change our use of data, enforcement notices, as well potential civil claims including class action type litigation where individuals suffer harm. Moreover, the United Kingdom leaving the EU could also lead to further legislative and regulatory changes. It remains unclear how the United Kingdom data protection laws or regulations will develop in the medium to longer term and how data transfer to the United Kingdom from the EU will be regulated. However, the United Kingdom has transposed the GDPR into domestic law with the Data Protection Act 2018, which remains in force following the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU. Other Healthcare Laws The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly (regardless of knowledge of this specific statute) and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and other third parties on the other. The majority of states also similar have anti-kickback laws, which in some cases apply to items and services reimbursed by private insurance. The federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Manufacturers can be held liable under false claims laws, even if they do not submit claims to the government, where they are found to have caused submission of false claims by, among other things, providing incorrect coding or billing advice about their products to customers that file claims, or by engaging or off-label promotion to customers that file claims. Violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may also constitute a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Actions under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the Department of Justice or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Many states also have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, prohibits, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers to annually report certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other health care providers, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Sanctions under these federal and state fraud and abuse laws may include civil monetary penalties and criminal fines, exclusion from government healthcare programs, and imprisonment. We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, impose specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information held by covered entities and their business associates. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to, as well as imposed certain other privacy obligations on, “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed 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 attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C § 45(a). 20 Table of Contents Coverage and Reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will therefore depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care plans, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a pharmaceutical or biological product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a pharmaceutical or biological product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Healthcare Reform A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products. Federal, state and local governments in the U.S. have established and continue to consider policies to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs. Recently there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for prescription drugs. At the federal level, for example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Key provisions of the IRA include the following, among others: • The IRA requires manufacturers to pay rebates for Medicare Part B and Part D drugs whose price increases exceed inflation. • The IRA eliminates the so-called “donut hole” under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. • The IRA delays the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. • The IRA directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to engage in price-capped negotiation for certain Medicare Part B and Part D products. Specifically, the IRA’s Price Negotiation Program applies to high-expenditure single-source drugs and biologics that have been approved for at least seven or 11 years, respectively, among other negotiation selection criteria, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The negotiated prices will be capped at a statutorily determined ceiling price. There are certain statutory exemptions from the IRA’s Price Negotiation Program, such as for a drug that has only a single orphan drug designation and is approved only for an indication or indications within the scope of such designation. The IRA’s Price Negotiation Program is currently the subject of legal challenges. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties or a potential excise tax. The IRA permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the HHS Secretary, to implement many of the IRA’s provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. The effect of the IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge and reimbursement pharmaceutical manufacturers can receive for approved products, among other effects. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States. This included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare 21 Table of Contents payments to several providers, including hospitals and imaging centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Biden administration has indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority. On October 14, 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to lower prescription drug costs for Americans. In response to this directive, the HHS Secretary announced and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is developing three new models intended to lower drug costs under Medicare and Medicaid, including establishing a new approach for administering outcomes-based agreements for cell and gene therapies. President Biden also signed an executive order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to, among other things, support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drugs, including by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars, and support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the executive order directs the HHS Secretary to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry. The executive order also directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. The FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. In response, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. On January 5, 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s drug importation proposal, the first step toward Florida facilitating importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Employees and Human Capital Resources At Cartesian Therapeutics, we consider human capital to be an essential driver of our business and successful strategy creation and execution. Our people, driven by our collaborative, pioneering, and patient-focused culture, propel our business forward, strengthening us for long-term success. As of December 31, 2023, we had 38 employees, 26 of whom are primarily engaged in research and development activities and 12 in corporate functions. 37 of our employees are employed by us on a full-time basis. 73.6% of our employees have at least one of a Masters, PhD, or MD degree. All employees reside and work in the United States and our employees are not represented by a labor union. We consider our employee relations to be strong and in good standing. Our goal is to continually engage our talented and diverse workforce to drive value creation both for our business and ultimately our patient populations. We believe in a proactive approach to talent management focusing on retention of key talent, critical role successor identification, and impactful employment development. Additional priority areas intended to drive engagement include successful recruitment of diverse talent, continual promotion of professional development at all levels, introduction, and evolution of business-friendly human resources solutions, coupled with an intentional culture dialog aimed to drive a high engagement, high performance, patient centric culture. To further drive attraction and retention of our high-quality, experienced, and diverse workforce, we invest in the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of our employees. These investments include a competitive mix of compensation and generous insurance benefits. To assist employees with the rising cost of healthcare, we pay 100% of an employee’s deductible and co-insurance payments. All employees are eligible to participate in our equity compensation programs. All employees are awarded new hire equity and annual equity. Employees are also eligible to receive an annual cash bonus and to participate in a 401(k) retirement plan with an industry competitive company match. Available Information We file electronically with the SEC our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other information. Our SEC filings are available to the public over the Internet at the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov. We make available on our website at www.cartesiantherapeutics.com, free of charge, copies of these reports as soon as reasonably practicable after filing or furnishing these reports with the SEC. The hyperlink to our website is included as an inactive textual reference only, and the information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other filings we make with the SEC. 22 Table of Contents RISK FACTORS SUMMARY Investing in our common stock involves various risks. You should carefully read and consider the matters discussed in this Annual Report under the heading “Risk Factors,” which include the following risks: • We are a development-stage company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability. • We will need substantial additional funding in order to complete development of our product candidates and commercialize our products, if approved. If we are unable to raise capital when needed and on terms favorable to us, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts. • We develop our mRNA-based product candidates by leveraging our proprietary technology and our manufacturing platform, RNA Armory®, which is an unproven approach to the treatment of autoimmune disease. We are early in most of our clinical development efforts and may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable drugs. • Clinical drug development is inherently risky and involves a lengthy and expensive process, which is subject to a number of factors, many of which are outside of our control. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates. • We expect to continue to grow our manufacturing capabilities and resources and we must incur significant costs to develop this expertise and/or rely on third parties to manufacture our products. • We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including by failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials. • If we or our licensors are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology, or obtain and maintain issued patents that are sufficient to protect our product candidates, others could compete against us more directly, which would negatively impact our business. • We have been in the past and may in the future be subject to stockholder litigation. • The failure to successfully integrate the businesses of Selecta and Old Cartesian in the expected timeframe would adversely affect the Company’s future results. • We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, which may result in material misstatements of our consolidated financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations.