Schrodinger, Inc. 10-K

Item 1. Business. Overview We are transforming the way therapeutics and materials are discovered. Our differentiated, physics-based computational platform enables discovery of high-quality, novel molecules for drug development and materials applications more rapidly and at a lower cost, compared to traditional methods. Our software platform is licensed by biopharmaceutical and industrial companies, academic institutions, and government laboratories around the world. We are applying our computational platform to discover and advance a broad pipeline of development programs in collaboration with leading biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, we use our platform to advance a pipeline of partnered and wholly-owned drug discovery programs, which we refer to collectively as our proprietary drug discovery programs. Traditional drug discovery and development efforts have become increasingly complex, lengthy and capital-intensive, and are prone to high failure rates. Traditional drug discovery relies upon many iterations of costly and time-consuming manual molecule design, chemical synthesis, and experimental testing. One of the primary reasons for long timelines, high costs, and high failure rates in drug discovery is that predicting properties of molecules in advance of chemical synthesis is extremely complex and not amenable to traditional approaches. Over the past several decades and with the concerted efforts of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a physics-based computational platform that is capable of predicting critical properties of molecules with a high degree of accuracy. This key capability enables drug discovery teams to design and selectively synthesize molecules with more optimal properties, reducing the average time and costs required to identify a development candidate and increasing the probability that a drug discovery program will enter clinical development. Furthermore, we believe that development candidates with more optimized property profiles will have a higher probability of success in clinical development. Additionally, since the physics underlying the properties of drug molecules and materials is the same, we have been able to extend our computational platform to materials science applications in fields such as aerospace, energy, semiconductors, and electronic displays. We offer our customers a variety of software solutions that accelerate all stages of molecule discovery, design, and optimization. In 2022, all of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, measured by 2021 revenue, licensed our solutions, accounting for $43.2 million, or 32%, of our software revenue in 2022. The widespread adoption of our software, supported by our global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel, has driven steady growth in our software revenue. Biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly adopting our software at a larger scale, and we anticipate this scaling-up will drive future revenue growth. Our ability to expand within our customer base is demonstrated by the increasing number of our customers with an annual contract value, or ACV, in excess of $100,000. We had 227, 190, and 153 such customers, which represented 82%, 80%, and 79% of our total ACV, for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. Furthermore, the number of customers with an ACV in excess of $1.0 million increased to 18 for the year ended December 31, 2022 compared to 15 and 16 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We also had four customers with an ACV in excess of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to two such customers for the year ended December 31, 2021. In addition, our customer retention rate for our customers with an ACV over $100,000 for the year ended December 31, 2022 was 96% and was 96% or higher for each of the previous nine fiscal years. We believe the growth in the number of our customers demonstrates that companies are increasingly recognizing the power and appreciating the scientific and financial benefits of using our platform at scale while the retention in this group is indicative of the continued value of our platform. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Key Factors Affecting Our Performance” for additional information regarding ACV and customer retention rate. We also leverage our platform and capabilities across a portfolio of collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs spanning a wide range of disease targets and indications. Our drug discovery group, which we refer to as the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group, is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of approximately 150 experts in protein science, biochemistry, biophysics, medicinal and computational chemistry, and discovery scientists with expertise in preclinical and early clinical development. Our collaborative and partnered programs generate drug discovery revenue, including upfront payments, research funding payments, and discovery and development milestones, and have the potential to produce additional milestone payments, option fees, and future royalties. 6 Table of Contents In 2018, we began to develop a pipeline of wholly-owned drug discovery programs with the goal of using our platform to produce a portfolio of novel, high value therapeutics. Our initial programs were focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Since then, we have expanded into other therapeutic areas, including in the areas of immunology and neurology. We submitted an investigational new drug application, or IND, for our MALT1 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-1505, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, cleared the IND in June 2022. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. In addition, we continue to advance other wholly-owned programs through IND-enabling studies. We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for our CDC7 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-2921, in the first half of 2023 and for our WEE1 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-3515, in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. In November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and development of small molecule compounds for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our wholly-owned pipeline programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to our collaboration and license agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we received a $55.0 million upfront payment from BMS in November 2020 and an additional upfront payment in December 2022 related to the additional target, and we are eligible to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones from BMS across all potential targets, as well as a tiered percentage royalty on net sales of each product commercialized by BMS ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement. We generated revenue of $181.0 million, $137.9 million, and $108.1 million in 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, representing year-over-year growth of 31% and 28%, respectively. Our net loss was $149.2 million, $101.2 million, and $26.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. Strategy Our mission is to improve human health and quality of life by transforming the way therapeutics and materials are discovered. We aim to do this by: • Advancing the science that underlies our computational platform: We are the leader in the field of physics-based computational drug discovery, and we believe our computational platform is far ahead of that of our nearest competitors. We intend to maintain our industry-leading position by introducing new capabilities and refining our software to further strengthen our technology and advance the science underlying our platform. • Growing and expanding our software business: We have experienced steady growth in our software revenues, achieving $135.6 million in revenue in 2022, an increase of 20% compared to 2021, primarily driven by broad adoption of our software solutions by the biopharmaceutical industry and the expansion of our materials science business. We aim to continue to grow our software sales by increasing the adoption of our software by our existing customers and identifying and adding new customers. Further, we believe there remains a large opportunity for growth as there are thousands of biopharmaceutical companies that could benefit from our software solutions. ▪ Progressing our wholly-owned and partnered drug discovery programs : We plan to progress our wholly-owned drug discovery programs, including SGR-1505, SGR-2921 and SGR-3515, and continue to add new programs that leverage our computational platform. As we progress these programs, we will strategically evaluate on a program-by-program basis advancing them into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaborations to co-develop them with leading industry partners, or out-licensing them to maximize clinical and commercial opportunity. As part of this strategy, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS in November 2020, as well as collaboration agreements with Zai Lab Limited, or Zai Lab, in August 2021, with Eli Lilly and Company, or Lilly, in September 2022, and with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, in December 2022. 7 Table of Contents ▪ Advancing our collaborative programs: We intend to continue to work with our collaborators on advancing our collaborative programs, which generate revenues through upfront payments, research funding, preclinical and clinical milestones as well as potentially through option fees, commercial milestones, and future royalties. We achieved drug discovery revenue of $45.4 million in 2022, an increase of 84% compared to 2021, largely driven by the achievement of milestones from our collaborative and partnered programs. We also benefit from equity positions in certain of our collaborators. • Leveraging the synergies between our businesses: We believe that there are significant synergies within our business. We leverage the feedback that we receive from our software customers, collaborators, and internal drug discovery experts to improve the functionality of our platform, which we believe supports increased customer adoption of our solutions and more rapid advancement of our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. In addition, the success of our collaborators in advancing drug discovery programs provides significant validation of our platform and approach, which we believe increases the attractiveness of our platform to customers, helps us establish new collaborations, and validates the potential of our own proprietary drug discovery programs. Central to our ability to pursue these distinct lines of business is a firewall policy consisting of a set of well-established protocols and technology measures designed to ensure that the intellectual property of our software customers and drug discovery collaborators remains confidential and segregated. Industry Overview Traditional drug discovery and development efforts have become increasingly complex, lengthy and capital-intensive, and are prone to high failure rates. Traditional drug discovery involves experimental screening of existing libraries of molecules to find molecules with detectable activity, or “hit molecules,” followed by many iterations of chemical synthesis to attempt to optimize those hit molecules to a development candidate that can be advanced into human clinical trials. Efforts to optimize initial hit molecules for a drug discovery project involve costly and iterative synthesis and testing of molecules seeking to identify a molecule with the required property profile. The optimal profile has the acceptable balance of properties such as potency, selectivity, solubility, bioavailability, half-life, permeability, drug-drug interaction profile, synthesizability, and toxicity. These properties are often inversely correlated, meaning that optimizing one property often de-optimizes others. The challenge of optimizing hit molecules is amplified by the limited number of molecules that can be feasibly tested across these properties with traditional methods. As a result, this optimization process often fails to yield a molecule with a satisfactory property profile to be a development candidate, which is why many drug discovery programs fail to advance into clinical development. Being able to predict molecular properties before initiating costly and time-consuming experimental synthesis would accelerate drug discovery, reduce costs, and increase the probability of success. If it were possible to accurately predict critical properties of molecules, fewer molecules would have to be experimentally synthesized and tested. As a result, larger pools of molecules could be analyzed allowing for more selective synthesis of molecules, leading to higher-quality molecules. In addition, with predictive computational methods, better selections of molecules would be synthesized through exploration of larger portions of chemical space, leading to higher-quality molecules that would in turn have a higher probability of progressing through clinical development and obtaining regulatory approval for commercial sale. There have been many attempts to improve the efficiency of the drug discovery process by using computational methods to predict properties of molecules. One of the primary computational methods that many companies have attempted to deploy is machine learning, often referred to as artificial intelligence, or AI. One of the main benefits of machine learning is its ability to rapidly process data at scale. However, machine learning on its own has significant limitations and has therefore had a limited impact on improving the efficiency of the drug discovery process. Machine learning requires input data, referred to as a training set, to build a predictive model. This model is expected to accurately predict properties of molecules similar to the training set, but cannot extrapolate to molecules that are not similar to the training set. Accordingly, since the number of possible molecules that could be synthesized is effectively infinite, machine learning can only cover a minuscule fraction of the total number of molecules that could potentially be synthesized. The other primary computational method that has been explored to improve drug discovery involves using fundamental, “first-principles” physics-based methods, which require a deep and thorough understanding of the specific property to be computed. However, physics-based methods are difficult to develop and can be slow compared to machine learning. Further, to apply such methods to design molecules that will bind with high affinity to a particular protein target, the three-dimensional structure of that protein must be generated with sufficient atomic detail to enable application of these physics-based approaches, which is referred to as being “structurally enabled,” and such structures have been historically difficult to obtain and are only available today for a relatively small subset of the universe of human proteins. Another 8 Table of Contents factor preventing computational chemistry from realizing its promise has been limited compute speed. However, despite all of these challenges, physics-based methods have a significant advantage over machine learning in that they do not require a training set and can, in principle, compute properties of molecules that are well beyond existing industry experience and data. Our Platform Over the past several decades and with the concerted effort of hundreds of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a computational platform that is capable of predicting critical properties of molecules with a high degree of accuracy. We have built our platform on a foundation of rigorous, physics-based methods, combined with the rapid data processing and scaling advantages of machine learning, that together provide a significant advantage over traditional methods. We believe that physics-based simulation is at an inflection point as a result of the increased availability of massive computing power, combined with a more sophisticated understanding of models and algorithms and the growing availability of high-resolution protein structures. We have demonstrated that our software platform can have a transformative impact on the drug discovery process by: • reducing the average time and cost required to identify a development candidate; and • increasing the probability of drug discovery programs entering clinical development. Based on our drug discovery efforts to date, including in our collaborative programs, we believe that the development candidates discovered using our platform have a higher probability of successfully progressing through clinical development than the industry average. As shown below, we achieve these outcomes by tightly integrating our predictive physics-based methods, which have a high degree of accuracy, with machine learning, which is highly scalable. In addition, our platform enables real-time collaboration on drug discovery projects to inform decision-making and maximize the impact of the predictive capabilities of our computational platform. Our computational platform provides the following significant technological advantages over traditional approaches to drug discovery, all of which enable shortening timelines, decreasing costs, and increasing the probability of success of drug discovery efforts: • Speed. Our platform is able to evaluate molecules in hours rather than the weeks that it typically takes to synthesize and assay molecules in the laboratory. 9 Table of Contents • Scale. Our platform can explicitly evaluate billions of molecules per day, whereas traditionally operated discovery projects only synthesize approximately one thousand molecules per year, thereby increasing the probability that we find a novel molecule with the desired property profile. • Quality. In a peer-reviewed study, our platform was tested against traditional methods for selecting tight-binding molecules and resulted in an eight-fold increase in the number of molecules with the desired affinity. The figure below compares the optimization process of drug discovery using traditional methods and our approach. Our computational platform includes a broad array of proprietary capabilities: • Faster Lead Discovery : the ability to rapidly identify potent molecules suitable to initiate hit-to-lead and lead optimization efforts via solutions for virtual screening of extremely large libraries of molecules, as well as physics-based replacement of the central core of a molecule, known as scaffold hopping, to identify novel, highly potent molecules unavailable in library collections; • Accurate Property Prediction : the ability to assess key properties of drug-like molecules using physics-based calculations with accuracy comparable to that of experimental laboratory assays, to facilitate optimization of drug properties, including drug potency, selectivity, and bioavailability; • Large-Scale Molecule Exploration : the ability to computationally ideate and explore novel, high-quality drug-like molecules for consideration by discovery project teams utilizing computational enumeration and generative machine learning techniques that are trained and constructed to yield molecules that are synthetically feasible; 10 Table of Contents • Large-Scale Molecule Evaluation : the ability to scale our calculations of key drug properties to ultra-large idea sets of billions of molecules to enable more rapid and successful identification of high-quality drug candidate molecules; and • Integrated Data Management and Visualization : the ability to generate, access, and analyze the data derived from complex calculations integrated with assay data through a powerful and user-friendly graphical interface. Recognition of our scientific advances has come through customer adoption, in citations of publications in peer reviewed journals and in the progress of our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. For example, the initial paper describing our ligand-protein docking program, Glide, published in 2004 is one of the most cited papers in the history of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry , a premier journal in its field. Glide continues to be broadly used as a hit-finding technology throughout the biopharmaceutical industry by our customers. We have made many similar scientific advances in fields including druggability assessment, affinity calculation, protein structure refinement, and molecule ideation and design. These advances were achieved by our team of hundreds of Ph.D.-level scientists and software engineers with extensive input from our Scientific Advisory Board, which includes thought leaders in computational chemistry, physics-based simulations, statistical mechanics, and machine learning. Our computational platform is also applicable to new problems of interest and new fields of study. Since the underlying physics that drives a biologic to bind to its target is no different than the physics that drives a small drug molecule to bind to a protein, we have been able to successfully apply these technologies to the discovery of biologics. Similarly, the physics underlying the properties of materials is no different than the physics underlying the properties of drug molecules. Therefore, we have successfully applied our computational platform to materials science applications, including in the fields of aerospace, energy, semiconductors, and electronic displays. Software Business Overview We are the leading provider of computational software solutions for drug discovery to the biopharmaceutical industry. In 2022, all of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, measured by 2021 revenue, licensed our solutions, accounting for $43.2 million, or 32%, of our software revenue in 2022. Additionally, in 2022, our software was used by researchers around the world at more than 1,720 academic institutions. The widespread adoption of our software is supported by an approximately 230-person global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel. Our direct sales operations span across the United States, Europe, Japan, India, and South Korea, and we have sales distributors in other important markets, including China. We have a diverse and large existing customer base, ranging from startup biotechnology companies to the largest global pharmaceutical companies as well as an increasing number of materials science customers. Our ten largest software customers represented approximately 32% of our software revenue in 2022, including one customer that makes up 16% of total revenue. We continue to expand our customer base as we provide education and information to increase the awareness of the potential of our computational platform across different industries. As of December 31, 2022, we had 1,748 active customers, which we define as the number of customers who had an ACV of at least $1,000 in a given fiscal year. We believe there is a significant opportunity to expand the adoption of our platform within our growing customer base. Biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly adopting our software at a larger scale, and we anticipate that this scaling-up will drive future revenue growth. Our ability to expand within our customer base is demonstrated by the increasing number of our customers with an ACV over $100,000. We had 227, 190, and 153 such customers for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. In addition, we had 18, 15, and 16 customers for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, with an ACV of over $1.0 million. Furthermore, we also had four customers with an ACV in excess of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to two such customers for the year ended December 31, 2021. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our top 10 customers, measured by ACV, accounted for $46.5 million of our total ACV compared to $34.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. We believe biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly recognizing and appreciating the scientific and financial benefits of using our platform at scale. Furthermore, we believe our sales and marketing approach and the quality of our software solutions help us cultivate long-standing relationships and reoccurring sales. This is demonstrated by the length of our key relationships, with the average tenure of our 10 largest software customers in 2022 being nearly 19 years. Furthermore, our ability to 11 Table of Contents expand our customer relationships over time is exemplified by our ability to retain our customers with an ACV over $100,000. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our year-over-year customer retention rate for our customers with an ACV over $100,000 was 96% and was 96% or higher for each of the previous nine fiscal years. We believe the continued expansion of our customer base coupled with our ability to expand our customers’ use of our software will continue to drive revenue growth. The figure below shows the different ways in which we are accelerating our growth. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Key Factors Affecting Our Performance” for additional information regarding ACV and customer retention rate. Our Software Solutions for Drug Discovery We offer our customers a variety of software solutions that accelerate all stages of molecule discovery, design, and optimization pursuant to agreements with terms typically for one year. Our licenses give our customers the ability to execute a certain number of calculations across specified software solutions. Certain of our key software solutions are highlighted below, along with the particular stage of drug discovery in which they are employed. • Target Identification and Validation: the identification and evaluation of a protein target that might be worthwhile to pursue as the subject of a drug discovery campaign. ◦ WaterMap characterizes the locations and energetics of water molecules occupying the binding site of, or solvating, a target protein. From this analysis, one can infer the druggability of a protein, as well as uncover opportunities to significantly increase binding affinity by exploiting the water structure in the binding site. ◦ SiteMap allows binding site identification and evaluation to help locate potential protein binding sites, including allosteric sites, and predict the approximate druggability of those sites. ◦ GlideEM, PrimeX and Phenix/OPLS4 enable optimization of intermediate quality experimental protein structures to a quality sufficient to drive structure-based drug discovery. • Hit Discovery : the identification of hit molecules. ◦ FEP+ is our free energy calculation software. In hit discovery, this software can be used to replace the central core of earlier known tight binding molecules to identify novel, highly potent molecules unavailable in library collections. Often these molecules have much higher binding affinity and have a better property profile than typical hit molecules. FEP+ can also be used to calculate absolute binding affinities, which enables the software to evaluate and triage diverse molecules sharing no common peripheral features in a hit discovery context. ◦ Glide is our virtual screening program that is used to screen libraries of molecules to find hit molecules likely to bind a particular protein target in a specific conformation. ◦ WScore is our next-generation virtual screening program that utilizes a more accurate and robust description of protein-ligand interaction solvation effects. This and other novel features enable WScore to more reliably find hit molecules for challenging protein targets when screening libraries of molecules. ◦ Shape uses the three-dimensional structure and shape of earlier known hit molecules to find new hits when screening libraries of molecules. 12 Table of Contents ◦ AutoQSAR/DeepChem uses modern machine-learning methods trained to earlier known hit molecules to find novel hits when screening libraries of molecules. ◦ Induced Fit Docking can computationally predict the binding mode of molecules to a binding site of a protein, including predicting how the conformation of the protein binding site may reorganize upon binding the molecule. • Hit to Lead and Lead Optimization: Hit to lead is the stage at which small molecule hits are evaluated and undergo limited optimization to identify promising lead molecules. Lead optimization improves on the property profile of lead molecules by designing new analogs with improved potency, reduced off-target activities, and favorable physicochemical/metabolic properties. ◦ FEP+ is our free energy calculation software. In the hit to lead and lead optimization phases of drug discovery, FEP+ is used to predict the binding affinity of ligands to proteins with accuracy approaching that of physical experiments. It allows precise rank-ordering of large libraries of virtual molecules so that only the most potent molecules are synthesized in a program, which can save time and reduce cost. FEP+ can also be used to calculate the binding selectivity, solubility, and mutational resistance profiles of molecules, which are key properties for the optimization of bioavailability, toxicology, and efficacy. ◦ AutoQSAR/DeepChem uses modern machine-learning methods to produce predictive quantitative structure-activity relationship, or QSAR, models. This allows more accurate methods, such as FEP+, to be applied at a much greater scale but with less accuracy to much larger sets of molecules than would otherwise be possible and enables predictive QSAR models of other properties to be developed and deployed on drug discovery projects. ◦ PathFinder is an enumeration tool that enables the rapid exploration of synthetically tractable ligands. When PathFinder is deployed in conjunction with multiparameter optimization, machine learning, and FEP+ simulations, it provides a streamlined approach to create and evaluate large sets of synthetically tractable, lead-like, potent ligands. • Software Solutions Used Throughout the Drug Discovery Process: ◦ LiveDesign is our user-friendly enterprise informatics solution that enables interactive and collaborative molecule design, aggregation and sharing of data, and end-to-end discovery project coordination between chemists, modelers, and biologists. ◦ Maestro is our user-friendly modeling environment, which allows expert modelers to utilize our advanced modeling solutions. Our Software Solutions for Materials Science We also sell software licenses to customers engaged in molecule design for industrial purposes. The software solutions for our materials science customers leverage much of the same technology as our software for biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, similar to traditional drug discovery efforts, traditional approaches to discovering new molecules in these fields also suffer from long timelines, and it can take as long as 10 to 20 years to bring new materials to the market. We are focused on leveraging our technology to transform the way new materials are discovered, and we believe that materials science industries are only beginning to recognize the potential of computational methods. We are continuing to build a team of subject matter experts to further drive adoption of our computational platform in each of the following areas in which we currently operate: • mobile electronics and displays —organic electronics (OLED); • aerospace and defense —polymers, composites; • microelectronics —semiconductors, thin film processing; • oil and gas —catalysis, reactivity; • energy —alternative energy, batteries; and • consumer packaged goods —soft matter, formulations. As part of our ongoing efforts to further advance our software solutions for materials science applications, in June 2020, we entered into a three-year agreement with Gates Ventures, LLC to develop and apply atomistic simulations methods to improve battery performance. Furthermore, in March 2022, we entered into a three-year collaboration with Eonix LLC, or Eonix, to accelerate the discovery and design of materials for safer, energy dense lithium ion batteries. Under the terms of this collaboration, we received an equity stake in Eonix, and will be eligible to receive additional equity upon the successful completion of certain technical milestones. 13 Table of Contents Drug Discovery Business Overview We are using our computational platform in both our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. The figure below illustrates the advantages in time, cost, and molecule quality of our computational drug design approach over traditional drug discovery approaches. The figures below show the number of collaborative and partnered programs we have worked on in each given year, as well as the amount of drug discovery revenue we have generated for the years presented. Collaborative programs on which our discovery work is completed, but for which we remain eligible for future milestones and royalties are not included in the figures below. As of December 31, 2022, we also had an aggregate of 15 collaborative and partnered programs for which we are eligible to receive future royalties on sales, if any, compared to 13 programs as of December 31, 2021. While our revenue-generating collaborations are an important component of our business, our strategy is also to invest in wholly-owned drug discovery programs. We evaluate these programs individually to determine the advisability of entering into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaboration, or out-licensing programs to optimize their development and clinical and commercial potential. As part of this strategy, we have entered into collaboration agreements with BMS, Zai Lab Limited, and Lilly, which are more fully described in "—Our Proprietary Drug Discovery Programs." Our drug discovery revenue consists of revenue generated from collaborations through the combination of upfront payments, research funding payments, discovery and development milestones, and other fees, as well as any revenue generated from our pipeline of proprietary drug discovery programs. 14 Table of Contents Our Drug Discovery Collaborations Over the last decade, leveraging our platform and expertise, we have steadily grown our portfolio of collaborative programs. These programs have provided us with significant income and have the potential to produce additional milestone payments, option fees, and royalties in the future. These programs pursue the discovery and development of clinical candidates across a wide range of therapeutic target protein classes and indications. Many of these programs are pursuing novel molecules for targets where a low-dose small molecule inhibitor or activator with optimal drug-like properties has been difficult to achieve or where selectivity for the target of interest has been difficult to achieve relative to other proteins. We have steadily grown our pipeline of collaborative programs by selectively entering into drug discovery collaborations with leading drug development and commercialization companies. Among the factors that we use to embark on collaborations are whether the targets are well-validated, have high therapeutic potential, and are amenable to the strengths of our computational platform, and whether or not the collaborator brings complementary capabilities, all of which we believe contribute to an increased probability of success. Through access to the maximum potential scale of our computational platform and our drug discovery and software development teams, our collaborators receive the following key benefits: • Immediate utilization of our platform: Ability to immediately and efficiently leverage the full benefits of our computational platform, without the need for training or ramp-up time, thereby enabling accelerated drug discovery. • Access to massive compute power : Ability to run our computational software at scale, thereby avoiding the time and cost needed to build such computational infrastructure on their own. • Early access to cutting-edge functionality : Real-time access to emerging solutions as they are being developed. • Target exclusivity : Under our collaboration agreements, we agree to design drugs for a particular protein target or targets using our computational platform and know-how exclusively for the collaborator. Collaboration Agreements We have entered into a number of collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies under which our collaborators are pursuing research in a number of therapeutics areas, including without limitation, various programs in oncology, antifungal diseases, fibrosis, inflammatory bowel disease, metabolic disease, autoimmune disease, immuno-oncology, cardiopulmonary disease and tuberculosis. Our current collaborators include, but are not limited to, Ajax Therapeutics, Inc., Bright Angel Therapeutics Inc., Morphic Holding, Inc., or Morphic, Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC, or Nimbus, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Otsuka, Petra Pharma Corporation, Sanofi S.A., and Structure Therapeutics Inc. (formerly ShouTi, Inc.). All of the programs being pursued under these collaborations are fully owned and controlled by each respective collaborator. Our opportunity to receive potential revenues from any of these programs is generally limited to research funding payments, development, regulatory, and commercial milestones, and royalties on commercial sales, if any. We are not responsible for advancing their preclinical or clinical development or their commercialization, if approved. Equity Stakes . We have received equity consideration in certain of our collaborators, and from time to time, we have also made additional equity investments in certain of these collaborators. As noted above, all of these programs are fully owned and controlled by each respective collaborator, with the exception of Faxian Therapeutics, LLC, which is a 15 Table of Contents 50/50 joint venture. The following table presents our equity stakes on an issued and outstanding basis (unless otherwise noted) as of December 31, 2022: Company Ownership % Ajax Therapeutics, Inc. 6.3% Apollo, LLC (1) 7.9% Bright Angel Therapeutics Inc. 33.3% Faxian Therapeutics, LLC (JV) 50.0% Morphic Holding, Inc. (2) 2.1% Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC (3) 3.8% Ravenna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 3.1% Structure Therapeutics, Inc. (4) 3.7% (1) Represents our equity in the entity, which entity holds the rights to any future payments received in connection with Gilead Sciences, Inc.’s acquisition of Nimbus’ ACC inhibitor program. (2) Based on the number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 21, 2023, as reported on Morphic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the SEC on February 23, 2023. (3) On a fully diluted basis (4) Based on the number of ordinary shares outstanding as of December 31, 2022, as reported on Structure Therapeutics Inc.'s prospectus, as filed with the SEC on February 6, 2023. From time to time, we may also receive distributions on account of our equity stakes in our collaborators. For example, in February 2023, Nimbus announced the closing of the acquisition by Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, or Takeda, of Nimbus Lakshmi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nimbus, and its tyrosine kinase 2, or TYK2, program, which includes the TYK2 inhibitor, NDI-034858, which is being evaluated for the treatment of multiple immune-mediated diseases following positive results from the Phase 2b clinical trial in psoriasis. Following the closing of the acquisition, in February 2023, we received a cash distribution in the amount of $111.3 million from Nimbus, and we expect to receive a second cash distribution in the amount of $36.0 million from Nimbus in the second quarter of 2023, for a total cash distribution of $147.3 million. Financial Rights. In addition to our equity stakes in certain of our collaborators, we also have rights to various payments on a collaborator-by-collaborator agreement basis including research funding payments, discovery, development, and commercial milestones, and potential royalties in the single-digit range. Under certain of our collaboration agreements, we are also eligible to receive a percentage of our collaborators’ sublicense revenue. Many of our collaborative programs are currently still in the discovery stages. Generally, the size of the payments we are eligible to receive from a collaborative program increases as the program advances. As a result of the broader validation of our platform, we intend to pursue an increasing number of wholly-owned drug discovery programs, and we will continue evaluating new collaborative programs that fit our selection criteria and where the collaborator’s particular expertise, resources or intellectual property has the potential to create substantial value. Importantly, our current collaboration agreements typically also contemplate additional program targets being added, allowing our collaborators to potentially increase the number of programs under our current collaboration agreements, subject to our pre-existing exclusivity obligations and interests. However, because these collaborations are not under our control, we cannot predict whether or when we might achieve any event-based increases in research funding payments, milestone payments, royalty or other payments under these collaborations or estimate the full amount of such payments, and we may never receive any such payments. For a further discussion of the risks we face with respect to receipt of any of these payments, please refer to “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Drug Discovery—We may never realize a return on our investment of resources and cash in our drug discovery collaborations”. How We Work with Our Collaborators. Generally, our existing collaboration agreements provide that we agree to design drugs for a particular target or targets using our computational platform and know-how exclusively for the collaborator. The collaborator retains the intellectual property related to any molecules developed under the collaboration. Generally, our collaborators are not contractually required to provide us with, nor do we expect generally to receive, access to nonpublic information regarding key developments related to the advancement of these collaboration programs, such as clinical trial results, including safety and efficacy data, regulatory communications, or commercialization plans and 16 Table of Contents strategies. To the extent we do receive such information, our collaboration agreements generally require us to maintain the confidentiality of information we receive under the collaboration. In December 2022, we entered into a multi-part agreement with Otsuka, together with Otsuka’s subsidiary Astex Pharmaceuticals, which includes a collaboration for the discovery and development of a program focused on an emerging central nervous system, or CNS, disease target. Under the collaboration, we are responsible for drug design through lead optimization and Otsuka will be responsible for all other drug discovery and clinical development activities. We received an upfront payment and will be eligible to receive discovery, development and regulatory milestones, as well as tiered royalties on net sales of any products emerging from the drug discovery collaboration in all markets. Our Proprietary Drug Discovery Programs In 2018, we began to develop a pipeline of wholly-owned drug discovery programs with the goal of using our platform to produce a portfolio of novel, high value therapeutics. Our initial programs were focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Since then, we have expanded into other therapeutic areas, including in the areas of immunology and neurology. The FDA cleared our IND for SGR-1505 in June 2022. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. In addition, we continue to advance other wholly-owned programs through IND-enabling studies. We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and for SGR-3515 in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. Our strategy is to pursue an increasing number of wholly-owned programs and strategically evaluate on a program-by-program basis advancing them into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaborations to co-develop them with leading industry partners, or out-licensing them to maximize their clinical and commercial opportunities. As part of this strategy, in November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and development of small molecule compounds for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our wholly-owned programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to the agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we received a $55.0 million upfront payment from BMS in November 2020 and an additional upfront payment in December 2022, and we are eligible to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones from BMS across all potential targets, as well as a tiered percentage royalty on net sales of each product commercialized by BMS ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. We recently announced we are expecting the first program from this collaboration to advance to development candidate status. Following finalization of this advancement, we expect to recognize a drug discovery milestone associated with advancement of the program, which is projected in the first quarter of 2023. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement. In August 2021, we entered into a global discovery, development and commercialization collaboration with Zai Lab Limited focused on a novel program in oncology targeting DNA damage response. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and if we elect to co-fund clinical development of a product candidate under the collaboration, we will be entitled to receive 50% of any profits from the commercialization of an approved therapeutic in the United States. We are also eligible to receive up to approximately $338.0 million in preclinical, clinical, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments from Zai Lab Limited for any product candidate developed under the collaboration, and we are entitled to receive tiered royalties on net sales outside the United States. In September 2022, we entered into a collaboration with Lilly, under which we are responsible for the discovery and optimization of small molecule compounds addressing a specific target. Lilly will be responsible for the completion of preclinical development, clinical development and commercialization. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and we are eligible to receive up to $425.0 million in discovery, development and commercial milestone payments. We are also eligible to receive low single- to low double-digit royalties on net sales of any products emerging from the collaboration in all markets. 17 Table of Contents In addition to the above, we are also advancing a program in collaboration with Takeda focusing on an oncology target. Under this collaboration, we conduct all drug discovery research and pharmacology activities through the development candidate stage, and Takeda has the option to acquire the program at either the lead optimization stage or development candidate stage and to develop and commercialize such product candidate from the program. We control the drug discovery process and retain all intellectual property rights to any product candidate that is discovered under the program until Takeda exercises its option to acquire the program. The following is a summary of our proprietary drug discovery programs: Our Approach to Target Selection Our selection of targets is based on an extensive analysis of human targets and drug discovery programs. We analyze targets using automated methods at scale. The key steps we take in prioritizing programs involve: • Structural and modeling enablement . We use our computational platform to analyze protein structure quality as well as druggability of binding sites across thousands of target proteins in parallel. For a subset of high-quality structures of interest, we confirm amenability to our computational platform. • Evaluation of therapeutic potential . Our selection of targets is strongly influenced by the level of validation of the target, including analysis of human genetics and prior clinical data. • Identification of unsolved design challenges . We determine whether there are property profile challenges that could be solved by the application of our computational platform and provide a clinically meaningful differentiated, novel, high value product opportunity. • Assessment of potential value of pathways and mechanisms. We evaluate industry and commercial interest as well as the clinical utility with the aim of prioritizing programs with high commercial and therapeutic potential. Using this comprehensive analysis, we have identified a large number of protein targets that we believe are amenable to our technology. We continue to evaluate a number of additional targets using this analysis methodology. SGR-1505: Our MALT1 Inhibitor We are advancing SGR-1505, our novel MALT1 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas. Constant activation of nuclear factor-kappa B, or NF-κB, a key signaling molecule in B cells, is a hallmark of several subtypes of lymphoma. MALT1 is a key mediator of the NF-κB signaling pathway, the main driver of a subset of B-cell lymphomas, and functions by forming a complex with CARMA1 (Caspase recruitment domain-containing protein 11 also known as CARD-containing MAGUK protein 1) and BCL10 (B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 10) to mediate antigen receptor-induced lymphocyte activation. MALT1 is considered a potential therapeutic target for several subtypes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. 18 Table of Contents Activated B-cell, or ABC, a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or ABC-DLBCL, is the most common type of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s B-cell lymphoma. ABC-DLBCL is associated with a number of mutations that trigger a constitutively active NF-κB signaling pathway, which often is mediated by increased MALT1 protease activity. Among these mutations is a gain of function mutation or amplification of MALT1, which has also been identified in ABC-DLBCL patients. Our program utilized our physics-based software platform to enable the identification and advancement of multiple novel series of MALT1 inhibitors from hit finding to lead optimization. Combining multi-parameter optimization, FEP+, and machine learning, we were able to prioritize tight-binding compounds with drug-like properties, and identified multiple novel and distinct chemical series which showed strong anti-tumor activity, ultimately enabling us to select SGR-1505 as our development candidate in under two years. 19 Table of Contents As shown in the figures below, in preclinical studies, SGR-1505 showed anti-tumor activity in a MALT1 enzymatic assay and strong anti-proliferative effect in cell viability in a Bruton's tyrosine kinase, or BTK, inhibitor resistant OCI-LY3 B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cell line, when compared to ibrutinib, a covalent BTK inhibitor. As shown in the figures below, in preclinical studies, SGR-1505 also demonstrated strong anti-tumor activities as a single agent in BTK inhibitor resistant OCI-LY3 cells and in BTK sensitive OCI-LY10 B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in vivo cell-line derived xenograft (CDX) models. TPGS = D-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate, a solvent used in co-administration for drug dosing in animals; TID = three times a day dosing; SDD = spray dried dispersion; SEM = scanning electron microscopy, a method used to measure cell volume In addition, as shown in the figures below, SGR-1505 demonstrated strong anti-tumor activities in combination with ibrutinib in the BTK inhibitor sensitive in viv o models, such as the ABC-DLBCL patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model LY2298 and the OCI-LY10 CDX model. Beyond ABC-DLBCL disease models, as shown in the figures below, SGR-1505 also demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in an in vivo mantle cell lymphoma REC-1 CDX model. 20 Table of Contents SGR-1505 also showed strong combination effects with venetoclax (an inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2)) on inhibition of cancer cell viability in the OCI-LY10 CDX model. QD = once per day dosing; BID = twice a day dosing These data suggest that targeting MALT1 with SGR-1505 may expand therapeutic options for patients with selected B-cell lymphomas, such as ABC-DLBCL, with the possibility of expanding into other B-cell lymphomas such as mantle cell lymphoma. Furthermore, SGR-1505 demonstrated potential in combination with BTK inhibitors to overcome drug-induced resistance to BTK inhibitors in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. The FDA cleared the IND for SGR-1505 in June 2022. Our Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 is designed as an open-label, multi-center dose escalation clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas. We anticipate enrolling up to 52 patients with confirmed mature B-cell malignancies who are 18 years or older and have a life expectancy of equal to or greater than 12 weeks. SGR-1505 will be administered orally. The trial is designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, maximum tolerated dose and/or recommended dose of SGR-1505. Exploratory cohorts will evaluate additional pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, preliminary anti-tumor activity and safety to establish the recommended dose, and a sub-study will also evaluate the effect of food and drug-drug interactions. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 and we currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. SGR-2921: Our CDC7 Inhibitor We are advancing SGR-2921, our novel CDC7 inhibitor, for the treatment of advanced solid and liquid tumors. CDC7 is a serine/threonine protein kinase that has been shown to play important roles in DNA replication initiation and in response to replication stress and DNA damage. CDC7 levels are high in certain tumors, and are thought to be linked to these cancer cells’ proliferative capacity and ability to bypass normal DNA damage responses. CDC7 phosphorylates and activates the enzymes responsible for DNA replication initiation and proteins involved in replication stress response. Disruption of CDC7 activity in cancer cells leads to delayed DNA replication, increased replication stress, cell cycle abnormalities, and cell death. The antiproliferative potential of CDC7 inhibition was validated by a third party in Phase 1 clinical trials of a CDC7 inhibitor in which responses were observed in patients, including those with duodenal, esophageal and cervical cancer. Prior to this positive result, existing CDC7 inhibitors were not sufficiently tight-binding, lacked selectivity, and demonstrated poor pharmacokinetic properties. In order to maximize the anti-cancer activities of CDC7 inhibitors, very tight-binding inhibitors are required to achieve durable clinical impact as monotherapy or in the context of clinical combinations. Using our computational platform, we identified multiple tight-binding, selective, and novel CDC7 inhibitor series, and selected SGR-2921 as our development candidate. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, SGR-2921 demonstrated inhibition of recombinant human CDC7 in a biochemical kinase assay and in a biophysical assay, as measured by the average IC 50 value, which is a measure of the 21 Table of Contents potency of a compound in inhibiting specific biological functions. Table 1 also shows that SGR-2921 demonstrated strong binding affinity to CDC7 with an average equilibrium dissociation constant, or KD, which is a measure of binding affinity between a protein and a binding partner, in the picomolar range. Further, SGR-2921 showed inhibition of the phosphorylation of the serine in position 53, or S53, of the protein MCM2, or pMCM2, a downstream substrate of CDC7, in COLO205, a colorectal cancer cell line, and in two acute myeloid leukemia cell lines, MV-4-11 and MOLM-16. Table 1 Average IC 50 of CDC7 Kinase Activity and Binding Affinity to CDC7 for SGR-2921 Compound Average IC 50 [nM] KD [pM] SGR-2921 0.0277 ± 0.0054 10 Table 2 In Vitro Cell Based IC 50 Values of pMCM2 (S53) by SGR-2921 Cell line COLO205 [IC 50 (nM)] MV-4-11 [IC 50 (nM)] MOLM-16 [IC 50 (nM)] pMCM2 (S53) 1.19±0.41 0.92±0.40 1.62±0.52 SGR-2921 also showed anti proliferative activity in vitro in COLO205, MV-4-11 and MOLM-16 cell lines. Table 3 summarizes the average IC 50 value from the individual assays. Table 3 In Vitro Cell Based Viability IC 50 Values of SGR-2921 Cell line COLO205 [IC 50 (nM)] MV-4-11 [IC 50 (nM)] MOLM-16 [IC 50 (nM)] Cell viability 9.90±3.72 107.55±12.42 20.81±7.29 22 Table of Contents Furthermore, as shown in the figures below, SGR-2921 showed tumor growth inhibition resulting in tumor regression in the COLO205 colorectal cancer CDX model, which is a colorectal cancer cell line derived xenograft model, at doses that did not result in significant body weight loss. SGR-2921 also showed a dose-dependent increase in plasma drug concentration and a dose-dependent decrease in intratumoral pMCM2 in the COLO205 CDX model. In mouse models of acute myeloid leukemia, SGR-2921 also showed strong anti-tumor activity at doses that were tolerated. We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. SGR-3515: Our WEE1 Inhibitor We are advancing SGR-3515, our novel WEE1 inhibitor for the treatment of gynecological cancers and other solid tumors. WEE1 is a gatekeeper checkpoint kinase that prevents cellular progression through the cell cycle allowing time for DNA repair before cell division takes place. Inhibition of WEE1 allows for accumulation of DNA damage, triggering DNA breakage and apoptosis in tumor cells. Third party WEE1 inhibitors have shown clinically meaningful tumor regression with partial responses and stable disease in ovarian and uterine cancer in clinical trials. A third party WEE1 inhibitor is currently being studied in combinations with chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, and immunotherapy. We identified a number of tight-binding, selective WEE1 inhibitor series using our computational platform and we have recently selected SGR-3515 as our development candidate. We believe SGR-3515's physicochemical properties make it well suited for combinations with DNA damage response inhibitors such as PARP and ATR inhibitors and other targeted therapies for the treatment of ovarian, colorectal, breast, and other solid tumors. Prior third party WEE1 inhibitors may have off-target effects resulting from inhibition of other kinases and proteins, some of which are liver enzymes responsible for elimination of drug and drug metabolites from the body, 23 Table of Contents potentially making dosing and combinations more challenging. As shown in the figure below, we have benchmarked SGR-3515 against AZD1775, a WEE1 inhibitor from AstraZeneca, and Zn-C3, a WEE1 inhibitor being advanced by Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, and SGR-3515 demonstrated an improved kinase selectivity profile and we believe has lower potential for drug-drug interaction, or DDI, liabilities associated with liver enzyme inactivation. As shown in the figure below, SGR-3515 also showed better potency against WEE1 in cells measured by target engagement marker pCDC2 Y15. The selectivity of SGR-3515 was evaluated by profiling it at 1 uM across a panel of over 400 kinases. SGR-3515 demonstrated a more desirable selectivity profile compared to Zn-C3 and AZD1775. SGR-3515 has also shown comparable or better effects on the viability of various tumor cells including the A427 non-small cell lung cancer cell line and the OVCAR3 high grade serous ovarian cancer cell line compared to Zn-C3 and ADZ1775. SGR-3515 demonstrated robust and sustainable anti-tumor activity in vivo in A427 and OVCAR3 tumor models. These effects and anti-tumor activity are shown in the figure below with SGR-3515 demonstrating lower IC 50 values in these models as compared to Zn-C3 and AZD1775. All competitor data is internally generated by contract research organizations, using commercially available tools or synthesized by third-party research chemists using publicly available structure information. We plan to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-3515 in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. SOS1/KRAS Inhibitor Program In collaboration with BMS, we are developing a SOS1/KRAS protein-protein interaction inhibitor for the treatment of KRAS-driven cancers. SOS1, or Son of sevenless-1, is involved in the activation and regulation of KRAS. Oncogenic mutant KRAS stimulates the growth of some of the most intractable tumors, such as lung, pancreatic, and colon cancer. Strategies to disrupt the persistently active Ras pathway have focused on targeting Cys12 of the oncogenic mutant KRAS G12C with covalent inhibitors. Disruption of the SOS1/KRAS interaction has emerged as an alternative approach based on third party preclinical data. Pursuant to our collaboration and license agreement with BMS, once we have discovered or identified a SOS1/KRAS protein-protein interaction inhibitor that meets specified, mutually agreed criteria (or upon BMS's selection), BMS will be solely responsible for the further preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and commercialization of such candidate at its own expense. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement. 24 Table of Contents LRRK2 Inhibitor Program We are developing a LRRK2 inhibitor for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2, a genetically validated target, is a large multifunctional kinase enzyme and mutations in the LRRK2 gene have been shown to be associated with the development of Parkinson’s disease. In 2022, we generated cryo-electron microscopy structures of LRRK2, which have helped us to accelerate the identification of novel LRRK2 inhibitors. We expect to select a development candidate for this program in 2024. Other and Future Programs We have identified a large number of protein targets that we believe are amenable to our computational platform, and now have a significant inventory of targets that we can potentially advance into discovery programs. The Schrödinger Therapeutics Group also intends to pursue targets with strong biological validation and therapeutic potential that currently lack protein structures of sufficient quality to permit the use of our computational platform for drug discovery. We are actively pursuing strategic alliances with collaborators, as well as progressing internal initiatives, that enable us to generate high-quality protein structures for these targets, which will enable us to initiate discovery efforts. For example, as part of these efforts, in 2020 we entered into strategic partnerships with Viva Biotech to access new x-ray crystal structures as well as with Thermo Fisher Scientific to obtain structures of protein complexes leveraging cryo-EM technology. Furthermore, in January 2022, we acquired XTAL BioStructures, Inc., a company that provides structural biology services, including biophysical methods, protein production and purification, and X-ray crystallography, which we believe will augment our ability to produce high quality target structures for our drug discovery programs. Our initial programs are focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Genomic instability of malignant cells leads to genetic mutations that can drive resistance to kinase inhibitors, creating the need for second and third generation drugs targeting the same disease. Our computational platform has been shown to be capable of predicting the impact that mutations in the kinase domain have on drug binding, potency, and drug sensitivity. Use of our platform to assess and evaluate the impact of clinical mutations on drug potency can be a powerful tool for drug discovery. We believe that deploying our platform at scale with access to genomic profiling data for patients puts us in a strong position to predict the impact of active-site resistance mutations with clinically relevant accuracy to optimize the design of molecules that are robust against common resistant mutations. In addition to our programs highlighted above, we are also progressing a number of undisclosed programs in the areas of oncology, immunology, and neurology. We are pursuing certain of these programs on our own and certain of these programs are partnered with others pursuant to our collaboration agreements described above. All of these programs are currently in the discovery stage, and we have not yet identified a development candidate for any of these programs. Technical Details of Our Key Technologies Calculation of key drug properties using physics-based methods Over the past several decades and with the concerted effort of hundreds of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a physics-based computational platform that is capable of predicting the binding affinity of a drug molecule with a high degree of accuracy. The binding affinity of a drug molecule to a target protein is the key driving force of its in vivo efficacy. Specifically, when a drug binds to a target protein, the affinity with which it binds directly affects the extent to which it will modulate the function of the protein. Therefore, the ability to predict the binding affinity of a drug molecule to a target protein with a high degree of accuracy can significantly accelerate discovery of new efficacious medicines. Accurately calculating the binding affinity of a drug molecule to a protein is enormously complex and requires a full characterization of all the physical contributions to the binding. These contributions include the deformation and/or rigidification of the small molecule into the bound conformation (ΔG(1) in the figure below) and the rigidification of the protein in the bound conformation (ΔG(2)), the removal of waters surrounding the molecule (ΔG(3)) and the removal of 25 Table of Contents waters within the protein binding site (ΔG(4)), and finally the interactions achieved between the molecule and protein when binding to form the protein-molecule complex (ΔG(5)). We have developed a solution to consistently assess all of these contributions to binding with a high degree of accuracy, building on a method called “free energy perturbation.” Free energy perturbation perturbs, or transforms, an initial molecule into another molecule of interest and evaluates how that transformation changes binding affinity to a particular protein target. Our solution for conducting these calculations is called FEP+. FEP+ is enabled by the following differentiated constituent technologies: • classical molecular mechanics force field with broad coverage of drug-like molecules with a high degree of accuracy; • an automated workflow allowing for force field coverage to be extended on the fly utilizing our accurate quantum mechanics software; • computationally efficient molecular dynamics engine that runs on graphic processing units; • efficient, enhanced sampling methods that allow the calculation to be converged with reduced simulation times; • automated atom-mapping and interaction-mapping assignment; and • ability to scale these calculations to leverage large cloud computing environments. All of these constituent technologies are necessary to achieve the accuracy, scalability and applicability of our free energy perturbation implementation. In a notable peer-reviewed study including approximately 3,000 molecules across approximately 90 distinct projects, FEP+ exhibited an error profile that indicates its affinity predictions approach the accuracy of running a laboratory experiment. FEP+ is also able to perform these computations more rapidly than experimental assays. Computational assessment of a molecule utilizing FEP+ requires only a few hours. In comparison, it often takes weeks to synthesize a drug-like molecule and assay its binding affinity for the target of interest in a laboratory. As a result, our FEP+ solution can be used to explore very large numbers of molecules to identify drug candidates much more rapidly than would be possible solely using experimental approaches. In a peer-reviewed article published in collaboration with a large biopharmaceutical company, the ability of FEP+ to prioritize molecules for synthesis expected to bind more tightly than an initial hit was compared with several other industry-standard approaches. We found that FEP+ succeeded in prioritizing the synthesis of molecules with improved 26 Table of Contents binding affinity with eight times greater success than any other technique tested. This evidence supports the essential role that FEP+ can play in advancing drug discovery programs. Enumeration of extremely large libraries of molecules We have developed methods to enumerate extremely large libraries of molecules with our PathFinder software solution, thereby allowing our software customers, our drug discovery collaborators, and the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group to explore a much larger portion of chemical space than is possible through manual design. The chemical enumeration technology we have developed incorporates the most commonly used chemical reactions and can, in a fully automated fashion, computationally explore billions of alterations of a molecule of interest. Scaling accurate physics-based calculations to extremely large libraries of molecules Although FEP+ calculations have been shown to be accurate, it is not possible to apply these calculations to billions of molecules given the current availability of computing resources. To address this problem, we developed an approach that leverages the accuracy of FEP+, but allows for exploration of billions of molecules rapidly by leveraging machine learning. We have succeeded in integrating our physics-based molecule scoring with highly computationally efficient modern machine-learning methods. This combined approach allows us to apply our physics-based calculations to much larger sets of molecules than would otherwise be computationally tractable. This allows us to both increase the speed and likelihood of identifying clinically viable molecules. Advances in deep learning, a type of machine learning, in the past several years have required very large data sets as input to train the model. In a drug discovery program, the experimental data is typically sparse and expensive to procure, which is particularly problematic given that relevant drug-like chemical space is effectively infinitely large, estimated to be 10^60 molecules. For this reason, we believe that it would be extremely difficult to realize competitive advantage in a drug discovery program by using a platform exclusively based on machine learning or deep learning. Instead, we have developed an approach to integrate physics-based and machine-learning based scoring methodologies that allows the machine learning model to interactively prioritize additional molecules for physics-based analyses, known as active learning. Active learning retains the computational efficiency of machine learning while also taking advantage of the accuracy of the physics-based method. One can evaluate the utility of any particular prediction method with regard to both its accuracy and its computational efficiency. Modern machine learning methods, such as deep learning, do provide a small improvement over conventional machine learning methods. However, for much of its history, conventional molecular simulations were much less computationally efficient than machine learning but not that much more accurate. In developing FEP+, we were able to resolve deficiencies in early attempts to develop physics-based methods. FEP+ calculations are much more accurate than either conventional machine learning or modern machine learning when scoring molecules structurally distinct from the training set data. In addition, by integrating FEP+ with our machine learning implementation, which we refer to as AutoQSAR/DeepChem, we developed a solution that we refer to as Active Learning FEP+. Active Learning FEP+ combines the accuracy of free energy calculations with the speed of machine learning calculations and can be used to explore up to billions of molecules within a day. By further combining this functionality with our ability to enumerate large sets of molecules provided by PathFinder and our ability to build and manage complex workflows utilizing cloud resources, we are able to deploy these capabilities at scale to advance projects. Active Learning FEP+ is depicted in the figure below. 27 Table of Contents FEP+ is used to build a local model for a large library of molecules instead of relying on experimental data to provide the training set for the machine learning model. That machine learning model is then used to filter the large library of molecules down to a number that is small enough to be able to prioritize with FEP+. The result is that we can prioritize one billion molecules in as little as a day, rather than one million days. Rapid identification of novel active hit molecules suitable to initiate hit-to-lead and lead optimization efforts Several hit-finding technologies we have developed are routinely used to identify active hit molecules to initiate small molecule drug discovery programs. In our hit-finding campaigns, we and our software customers typically utilize: • modern machine learning models trained to the two-dimensional structures of known active molecules using our software solution, AutoQSAR/DeepChem; • shape-based methods trained to the known or computationally deduced three-dimensional bioactive conformations of known active molecules using our software solution, Shape; • structure-based docking methods that evaluate the number and kind of interactions possible utilizing a static atomistic representation of the experimentally determined three-dimensional structure of the target protein receptor using our software solutions, Glide and WScore; and • free energy calculations using our software solution FEP+, which provides a fully dynamic atomistic representation of the target protein receptor. These four approaches are complementary to each other, and their integrated use has led to successful hit-finding campaigns for dozens of protein targets in our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. There are also numerous reports in the literature and in patents of our software customers utilizing some combination of these approaches to identify hit molecules. AutoQSAR/DeepChem is trained to find known active molecules in a search through a molecule library and operates solely on the two-dimensional structure of the molecule. From this training process, AutoQSAR/DeepChem learns to identify substructures in the molecules that may lead to activity. Then when applied to large libraries of molecules, these methods can identify molecules with measurable activity against the target protein. These methods are highly efficient and can be used to screen billions of molecules in less than one day. However, one significant limitation is that machine learning methods cannot extrapolate into chemical space that differs from the training set and therefore, this method tends to identify molecules similar to already known molecules. Shape is used to identify molecules with a similar shape to known active molecules. It has been shown that molecules with similar three-dimensional shapes can have similar activities. While the hit rates and computational efficiencies of Shape and AutoQSAR/DeepChem are generally comparable, the hit molecules returned by these techniques tend to be distinct and complementary rather than redundant. This allows results from Shape to augment the AutoQSAR/DeepChem results while still being efficient for screening a large library. Glide and WScore use knowledge of three-dimensional structure of the binding site of the protein of interest, rather than the structure of active molecules, to evaluate the likelihood that a small molecule will bind to a protein target. Glide and WScore evaluate molecules based on the number and kind of contacts made between the molecule and protein. These methods are much more computationally expensive than AutoQSAR/DeepChem or Shape. However, they can be more readily applied to targets for which there is little or no earlier reported active molecules. The fourth computational method we routinely use to identify hit molecules to initiate drug discovery programs is the FEP+ solution described above. When used in this context, FEP+ can be used to completely replace the core moiety of an earlier known molecule to yield a novel molecule with similar binding potency. This approach is much more computationally intensive than previous methods, but is also much more accurate. Utilizing this approach on multiple programs, we have been able to identify novel nanomolar or picomolar inhibitors in the first few months of project chemistry that have property profiles typical of molecules only observed in the later hit-to-lead phases of drug discovery. Our FEP+ solution also supports the calculation of absolute binding affinities, which enables the software to evaluate and triage diverse molecules sharing no common peripheral features in a hit discovery context. 28 Table of Contents Computational analysis of the energetic properties of water molecules occupying molecule binding sites in proteins Subtle structural variations in molecules can have a profound impact on binding affinity to the protein target. The effects of these structural variations can be explained by a detailed examination of the thermodynamics of binding, including the free energy changes resulting from displacing water molecules in the binding site. Our computational software solution WaterMap maps the locations and energetic properties of water molecules that occupy protein binding sites, provides insight into the properties of the binding site, and quantitatively describes the water-mediated forces driving the binding of small molecules. Further, such an analysis can be used to assess the propensity of drug-like molecules to bind to the protein target with high affinity. WaterMap presents the computed results graphically for easy visualization of the water molecules occupying a binding site and their energetic properties. This makes interpretation of binding affinity data more intuitive and provides insights to possible design routes to improve potency and selectivity. Competition Software Business The overall market for molecular discovery and design software is global, rapidly evolving, competitive, and subject to changing technology and shifting customer interests and priorities. The solutions and applications offered by our competitors vary in size, breadth, and scope. We believe the principal competitive factors in our market include, among other things, accuracy of computations, level of customer satisfaction and functionality, ease of use, breadth and depth of solution and application functionality, brand awareness and reputation, modern and adaptive technology platform, integration, security, scalability and reliability of applications, total cost, ability to innovate and respond to customer needs rapidly, and ability to integrate with legacy enterprise infrastructures and third-party applications. We believe that we compete favorably on the basis of these factors and that the effort and investment required to develop a computational, physics-based platform similar to ours will hinder new entrants that are unable to invest the necessary capital and time, and lack the breadth and depth of technical expertise required to develop competing technology. Our ability to remain competitive will largely depend on our ability to continue to improve our computational platform and demonstrate success in our drug discovery efforts. Our software solutions face competition from competitors in the business of selling or providing simulation and modeling software to biopharmaceutical companies. These competitors include BIOVIA, a brand of Dassault Systèmes SE, or BIOVIA, Chemical Computing Group (US) Inc., Cresset Biomolecular Discovery Limited, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Optibrium Limited, Cyrus Biotechnology, Inc., Molsoft LLC, Insilico Medicine, Inc., Iktos, XtalPi Inc., and Simulations Plus, Inc. We also have competitors in materials science, such as BIOVIA and Materials Design, Inc., and in enterprise software for the life sciences, such as BIOVIA, Certara USA, Inc., ChemAxon, PerkinElmer, Inc., and Dotmatics, Inc. In some cases, these competitors are well-established providers of these solutions and have long-standing relationships with many of our current and potential customers, including large biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, there are academic consortia that develop physics-based simulation programs for life sciences and materials applications. In life sciences, the most prominent academic simulation packages include AMBER, CHARMm, GROMACS, GROMOS, OpenMM, and OpenFF. These packages are primarily maintained and developed by graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, often without the intent of commercialization. We also face competition from solutions that biopharmaceutical companies develop internally, smaller companies that offer products and services directed at more specific markets than we target, enabling these competitors to focus a greater proportion of their efforts and resources on these markets, as well as a large number of companies that have been founded with the goal of applying machine learning technologies to drug discovery. Drug Discovery Business The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. While we believe that our computational platform, technology, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, our drug discovery business faces potential competition from many sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty biopharmaceutical companies, technology companies, academic institutions and government agencies, and public and 29 Table of Contents private research institutions. Any product candidates that we or one of our collaborators successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. The key competitive factors affecting the success of the product candidates we develop, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, tolerability, convenience and price, the level of branded and generic competition and the availability of adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. If any of our product candidates are approved and successfully commercialized, it is likely that we will face increased competition as a result of other companies pursuing development of similar products or products that address similar diseases. In particular, there is intense competition in the field of oncology, which is a focus of our drug discovery efforts. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. We also compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. We also face competition in finding and establishing clinical trial sites, enrolling subjects for clinical trials, accessing combination studies and recruiting credible principal investigators and advisors from key clinical disciplines and academic centers. For example, with respect to our MALT1 inhibitor, SGR-1505, which we are advancing for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas, we are aware of several MALT1 inhibitors in clinical development, including by Janssen Research and Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company, AbbVie Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals. In addition, we are also aware of other therapeutics, both approved and in clinical development, for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in building and accessing networks of expert investigators, designing and conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and commercializing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and development and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. 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 our products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do. Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company In November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS, pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and preclinical development of small molecule compounds (other than protein-degrader compounds) for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas. Under the agreement, during a limited research term, we will be responsible, at our own cost and expense, for the discovery of small molecule compounds (other than protein-degrader compounds) directed to five specified biological targets pursuant to a mutually agreed research plan for each such target. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our early-stage programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to the agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement. Once we have discovered or identified a compound for a target that meets specified, mutually-agreed criteria or upon BMS selection of a compound as a development candidate, BMS will be solely responsible for the further preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and commercialization of such candidate at its own cost and expense. The 30 Table of Contents research term will end on the earlier of four years or until we have delivered a candidate for each specified target. We may elect to extend the research term for a limited period of time to deliver a candidate for a given target. In addition, the parties may mutually agree to extend the initial research term for an additional year. Under the agreement, BMS has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, seek and obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize at least one product that contains a licensed compound for each target in each of the United States, Japan and the European Union. The research component of the collaboration will be overseen by a joint steering committee comprised of an equal number of representatives from each of us and BMS. In addition to the initial specified targets, the parties have also agreed on a list of four reserved targets. BMS may replace one of the initial specified targets with a reserved target during a limited substitution period in the research term. Pursuant to the agreement, for a given target, we have granted to BMS an exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain patent rights, know-how and materials controlled by us to clinically develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, export and import and otherwise exploit, and have others do the same, any compound, molecule or product for such target throughout the world. Under the terms of the agreement, BMS paid us an initial upfront fee payment of $55.0 million, and we received an additional upfront fee payment in connection with the amendment in December 2022. We are also entitled to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones across all potential targets. Such milestones consist of up to $585.0 million in total milestones per oncology target, including $360.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified research, development and regulatory milestones and $225.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified commercial milestones, as well as up to $489.0 million in total milestones per neurology and immunology target, including $264.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified research, development and regulatory milestones and $225.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified commercial milestones. With respect to the additional neurology target we and BMS added pursuant to the December 2022 amendment, we are entitled to similar research, development, and regulatory milestones and commercial milestones for such target as under the original agreement. We are also entitled to a tiered percentage royalty on annual global net sales of licensed products ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. Royalties are payable by BMS on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the later of the expiration of the last valid claim of certain specified patent rights covering the licensed product in such country, expiration of all applicable regulatory exclusivities in such country for such licensed product and the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. The agreement excludes any activities relating to protein-degrader compounds. However, under the terms of the agreement, for a limited period of time after the execution of the agreement, we and BMS agreed to negotiate a separate definitive agreement pursuant to which we will agree to license to BMS the right to conduct research, development and commercialization activities with respect to degrader compounds for the targets under the agreement. In August 2021, we and BMS entered into a definitive agreement to discover, develop and commercialize bifunctional protein degraders consistent with the terms and conditions described in the initial collaboration agreement. On a target-by-target basis, during the term of the agreement for a given target, we are prohibited from clinically developing or commercializing, ourselves or with a third party, any nucleic acid, antibody, biologic, compound, small molecule or other molecule, or any product that contains the foregoing, that specifically modulates as its primary mechanism of action such target, or is designed to specifically modulate such target. Such prohibition encompasses both the initial specified targets listed as of the effective date of the agreement and those targets on the reserved target list for the limited substitution period. Unless earlier terminated, the agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the expiration of the applicable royalty term for such licensed product in such country and in its entirety upon expiration of the last royalty term for the last licensed product. Either party may terminate the agreement earlier upon an uncured material breach of the agreement by the other party on a target-by-target basis, or upon the occurrence of certain events of insolvency of the other party. Additionally, BMS may terminate the agreement for any or no reason, in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis, upon specified written notice to us. BMS may also terminate the agreement on a target-by-target basis for safety reasons. We may terminate the agreement on a target-by-target basis to the extent BMS commences or participates in challenging certain patents licensed by us to BMS under the agreement. 31 Table of Contents In the event that BMS terminates the agreement at will, or if we terminate for a breach, insolvency or patent challenge by BMS, we are entitled to certain reversionary rights with respect to certain compounds and products for the applicable terminated target(s). In the event that BMS has the right to terminate the agreement, in whole or with respect to a particular target, upon our uncured material breach or an event of insolvency with respect to us, then in lieu of so terminating, BMS has the right to elect to the have the agreement continue in full force and effect; provided that all royalties and milestones thereafter payable by BMS to us with respect to such applicable target(s) shall be reduced by 50%. License Agreements with Columbia University We have entered into several license agreements with Columbia University, or the Columbia License Agreements. The Columbia License Agreements establish our rights and obligations with respect to certain patents, software code, technology, and improvements thereto that we license from Columbia University and that are used in, and integrated into, our software solutions, and our physics-based computational platform. Our rights and obligations under, and the terms and conditions of, the Columbia License Agreements that we consider material to the operation of our business are described more fully below. On November 1, 2008, we entered into an amendment, or the Royalty Amendment, to certain Columbia License Agreements, including each of the agreements described below. The Royalty Amendment simplified the royalties payable under each agreement on gross revenues generated from the use of any product which contains any code or software, or is covered by any patent, that we license from Columbia University, or a Licensed Product, in connection with a services agreement. We also pay royalties under the Columbia License Agreements on gross revenues generated from the sale, licensing or renting of our Licensed Products, which we calculate on a product-by-product basis. In the event that one or more Licensed Products are sold together with other products for a single aggregate license fee, we have agreed to pay to Columbia University the applicable royalty on the gross revenues attributable to each Licensed Product based on the relative list prices of each product covered by such license fee. For a description of the royalties payable by us to Columbia University in connection with our services agreements, see “—Services Royalty Amendment” below. PS-GVB License Agreement On May 5, 1994, we entered into a license agreement, or the 1994 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 9, 2004 and November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 1994 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Jaguar quantum mechanical program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 1994 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive, license to the software code developed by Columbia University and incorporated into the electronic structure software program PS-GVB v1.0, or the PS-GVB Code, and all improvement to the PS-GVB v1.0 software program and PS-GVB Code developed by Columbia University, or the PS-GVB Improvements, including all PS-GVB Code and PS-GVB Improvements that are incorporated into any new products, new releases, and new versions related to the software, or the New PS-GVB Module Code, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may only sublicense the PS-GVB Code, the PS-GVB Improvements, and the New PS-GVB Module Code, or the Licensed PS-GVB Software, to the extent they are incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 1994 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed PS-GVB Software. As consideration for entering into the 1994 Columbia Agreement, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in the low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable PS-GVB v1.0 software program on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of the PS-GVB v1.0 software program, including any improvements and modifications thereto, regardless of whether such improvement or modification is marketed as a new version, new release, or new product, excluding any sales to Columbia University and any revenue generated under services agreements. The 1994 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon 32 Table of Contents termination, any third party that has licensed the Licensed PS-GVB Software from us will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software. Fast Multipole RESPA License Agreement On July 15, 1998, we entered into a license agreement, or the 1998 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 4, 2004, and November 1, 2008. The 1998 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, non-exclusive, license to the Fast Multipole RESPA code developed at Columbia University, or the RESPA Code, which was incorporated into the IMPACT software program used in our Glide ligand-protein docking program, PrimeX protein modelling program, QSite QM/MM program, and Combglide automated library generation program, and all improvements to the IMPACT software program, including any new versions and new releases thereof, that are developed by Columbia University, or the IMPACT Improvements, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may sublicense the RESPA Code and the IMPACT Improvements, or the Licensed IMPACT Software, to the extent it is incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 1998 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed IMPACT Software. As consideration for entering into the 1998 Columbia Agreement, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in the low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable IMPACT software program on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of the IMPACT software program, including any improvements and modifications thereto and any new versions and new releases thereof, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenue generated under services agreements. The 1998 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 1998 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software. Protein Folding License Agreement In September 2001, we entered into a license agreement, or the 2001 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 9, 2004 and November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 2001 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Prime protein modelling program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 2001 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive license to the protein folding code developed by Columbia University, or the Folding Code; all improvements to the Folding Code and to any of our products, software, or code that incorporates any part of the Folding Code, including any improvements thereto and new versions or new releases thereof, that are developed by Columbia University, or the Folding Code Improvements; and the issued patent covering the Folding Code, or the Folding Code Patent, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may sublicense the Folding Code, the Folding Code Improvements and the Folding Code Patent, or the Licensed Folding Code Software, to the extent it is incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 2001 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed Folding Code Software. As consideration for entering into the 2001 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have paid royalties to Columbia University in low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable product, software program, or code on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of any commercial product, software program, or code incorporating the Licensed Folding Code Software, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenues generated under services agreements. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2001 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, terminated with the expiration of the last to expire patent licensed under the 2001 Columbia Agreement in January 2014. 33 Table of Contents The 2001 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by Columbia University only upon our material breach of the agreement and our failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 2001 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software. PLOP License Agreement On June 19, 2003, we entered into a license agreement, or the 2003 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 2003 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Prime and PrimeX protein modelling programs and our Membrane Permeability model, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 2003 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive license to the protein local optimization program software code, or the PLOP Code, developed at Columbia University and the University of California and all software code comprising improvements to the PLOP Code that are developed by Columbia University or the University of California, or the PLOP Improvements, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. Pursuant to an interinstitutional agreement between Columbia University and the University of California, the University of California granted Columbia University the sole right to license the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements and has agreed not to license the PLOP Code or PLOP Improvements to any third party for as long as the interinstitutional agreement remains in effect. We may sublicense the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements to the extent they are incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. We are restricted from distributing the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements source code without the prior written consent of Columbia University. Columbia University and the University of California retain the right to use, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to use, the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements for teaching and academic research purposes. As consideration for entering into the 2003 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable product, software program, or code on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, leasing, or renting any commercial product, software program, or code incorporating the PLOP Code or any PLOP Improvements, excluding any sales to Columbia University or the University of California and revenues generated under services agreements. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2003 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, will terminate on June 19, 2023. Columbia University is responsible for the copyright registration of the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements. We are responsible for paying all reasonable copyright registration and attorney fees in connection with such copyright registrations. The 2003 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 2003 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software. Water Site Analysis License On May 27, 2008, we entered into a software and patent license agreement, or the 2008 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on November 1, 2008. The 2008 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide license, exclusive in the field of computational chemistry software and related services, to (a) certain software that implements the water site analysis method, or the Water Site Software; (b) all patent rights covering the Water Site Software, or the Water Site Patents; and (c) any products that incorporate or include the Water Site Software, or that is covered by the Water Site Patents, or the Water Site Products, in each case, to reproduce, modify, distribute, and perform and display in connection with the development, marketing, and sale of our products and services, to conduct research using the Water Site Software, and to conduct backup disaster recovery. Our Water Site Products include our WaterMap Core program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. We are restricted from 34 Table of Contents distributing the Water Site Software source code without the prior written consent of Columbia University. Under the 2008 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to use, and to permit other entities and individuals to use, the Water Site Software and Water Site Patents for academic and non-commercial educational purposes in the field of computational chemistry software and related services. As consideration for entering into the 2008 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in low-double digit percentages on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, leasing, or renting of any Water Site Product, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenues generated under services agreement. The royalties under the 2008 Columbia Agreement are paid on a product-by-product basis and vary based on whether or not the gross revenues are generated in countries of manufacture or sale in which the Water Site Product is covered by a Water Site Patent. In the event that there are multiple royalties payable on a single product, we are required to (i) pay the higher of the two royalties, if there are no more than two royalties payable on the particular Water Site Product or (ii) negotiate in good faith with Columbia University on a single royalty, if there are more than two royalties payable on the particular Water Site Product. In the event that we take action against Columbia University with respect to the validity or enforceability of any Water Site Patents, excluding any defensive actions or claims, the royalties paid under the 2008 Columbia Agreement will increase by a specified amount. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2008 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, will terminate on May 27, 2028. Columbia University is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the Water Site Patents in the jurisdictions that we specify. If we decide to discontinue the prosecution or maintenance of any Water Site Patent in any jurisdiction, but Columbia University objects to such discontinuation, our license to use such Water Site Patent will terminate in that jurisdiction; provided that, if we are using the Water Site Patent or Water Site Software in the jurisdiction at issue, Columbia University is obligated to discuss in good faith whether the licenses should instead be non-exclusive. Columbia University is also responsible for the enforcement of the Water Site Patent at its own expense and in its sole judgment; provided that, if we provide Columbia University with evidence of infringement of a Water Site Patent by a third party, and Columbia University fails to take appropriate enforcement action, we may initiate legal proceedings against the alleged infringer. We are responsible for reimbursing Columbia University for their reasonable expenses in connection with prosecuting and maintaining the Water Site Patents. Unless terminated earlier, the 2008 Columbia Agreement will expire on a product by product and country by country basis upon the later of (i) the expiration of the last issued Water Site Patent, (ii) fifteen years from the date of the first commercial sale of a Water Site Product in a given country, and (iii) the expiration of the Water Site Software copyright. Columbia University may terminate the 2008 Columbia Agreement if we fail to cure a material breach, become subject to a voluntary or involuntary petition for bankruptcy or any other proceeding relating to insolvency, receivership or liquidation, or initiate any proceeding or assert any claim challenging the validity or enforceability of the Water Site Patents. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed a Water Site Product from us will retain the right to use such product, subject to the terms of their existing license agreement with us, and we will have the right to continue to provide support to any such third parties for the duration of their license agreement. Services Royalty Amendment On November 1, 2008, we entered into the Royalty Amendment with Columbia University, which amended and simplified our royalty obligations under each of the Columbia License Agreements described in each of the foregoing sections. Pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in mid-single digit percentages on the service fees generated from services (excluding certain gross revenue, including revenue generated under agreements with Columbia University) that we, or our affiliates, perform using one or more Licensed Products under an agreement with a third party. Upon termination of any of the Columbia License Agreements for any reason other than our material breach, we will have the right to continue to use the Licensed Products to provide services under existing third-party service agreements, until the expiration or termination of such agreements. Intellectual Property We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or jointly, or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, collaboration opportunities, and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in our field. 35 Table of Contents It is important to our future commercial success to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions, and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patent, trademark, and copyright rights; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any products we develop may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. We also cannot ensure that patents will issue with respect to any patent applications that we or our licensors may file in the future, nor can we ensure that any of our owned or licensed patents or future patents will be commercially useful in protecting our software, technology, computational platform, and any product candidates we develop. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any products we develop will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold or may hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property. Our strategy is to file patent applications directed to our key software and our key programs in an effort to secure our intellectual property positions vis-a-vis this software and these programs. The patent portfolio for our software business includes at least 12 published patent families. As of February 6, 2023, we owned or held exclusive license rights to approximately 37 patents and patent applications, including at least 12 issued or allowed U.S. cases, five pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 11 issued or allowed non-U.S. cases, including six granted European patents which have been validated among multiple individual European Patent Convention nations and five non-European patents, and nine pending foreign patent applications relating to our computational platform. While we believe that the specific and generic claims contained in our wholly-owned and licensed pending U.S. and non-U.S. applications provide protection for various aspects of our computational platform, third parties may nevertheless challenge such claims. Any patents that are issued or that may issue from these families are expected to expire between 2026 and 2038, absent any adjustments or extensions. As of February 6, 2023, there were seven published patent families related to our proprietary drug discovery business, and several of our drug discovery collaborators have filed patent applications related to our collaborations that include employees of ours as inventors, including over 100 compound patents and patent applications since 2010. We do not own any intellectual property rights related to these inventions. As of February 6, 2023, there are seven pending wholly-owned provisional applications, six pending international patent applications, three pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 27 pending non-U.S. patent applications related to our proprietary drug discovery business. Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may be significantly narrowed before issuance, if issued at all. We expect this may be the case with respect to some of our pending patent applications. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application, absent any adjustments or extensions. In addition, in the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years, but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. It is possible that issued U.S. patents we may obtain in the future may be entitled to patent term extensions. If our use of product candidates or the product candidate itself receive FDA approval, we intend to apply for patent term extensions, if available, to extend the term of patents that cover the approved use or product candidate. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. 36 Table of Contents In addition to patent protection, as of February 6, 2023, we had approximately 53 copyright registrations covering our proprietary software code, and we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and confidential know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with any collaborators, scientific advisors, service providers, employees, and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors, and collaborators. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property. We also own numerous trademarks registered in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, including “Schrödinger” and “LiveDesign”. We pursue additional trademark registrations to the extent we believe doing so would be beneficial to our competitive position. Sales and Marketing Software Business We commercialize our software solutions in various jurisdictions around the world through our software sales organization. We have sales operations in the United States, Europe, Japan, India, and South Korea and we also have established distribution channels in other important markets, including China. These efforts are led by our approximately 230 person global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel. Our marketing strategy leverages our strong base of scientific publications to support the continued growth of our computational platform into computational chemistry markets across industries and academia worldwide. Drug Discovery Business We have not established a commercial organization or developed distribution capabilities given the current stage of development of our wholly-owned drug discovery programs. We plan to enter into agreements with biopharmaceutical companies that contribute to our ability to efficiently advance development candidates that we discover internally using our computational platform through to commercialization. We expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution, and other arrangements with one or more of these third parties to develop and ultimately commercialize our development candidates. Over time, we may also create a commercial organization for drug product sales if and as we advance the development of any product candidates that we determine to commercialize ourselves. Manufacturing We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations. We rely and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for the preclinical and clinical development of any development candidates we develop ourselves. Government Regulation and Product Approvals Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. 37 Table of Contents Approval and Regulation of Drugs in the United States In the United States, drug products are approved and regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and applicable implementing regulations and guidance. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor. The failure of a sponsor to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the product candidate will be approved by the FDA: • preclinical testing including laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies, which must be performed in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations and standards; • design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current good clinical practices, or GCP; • preparation and submission to the FDA of a new drug application, or NDA, for a drug product which includes not only the results of the clinical trials, but also detailed information on the chemistry, manufacture and quality controls for the product candidate and proposed labeling for one or more proposed indication(s); • review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable; • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product candidate or components thereof are manufactured to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity; • satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of clinical data in support of the NDA; • payment of user fees and securing FDA approval of the NDA to allow marketing of the new drug product; and • compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and the potential requirement to conduct any post- approval studies required by the FDA. Preclinical Studies Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage, including in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation, and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. 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. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity and long-term toxicity studies may continue after the IND is submitted. 38 Table of Contents The IND and IRB Processes Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors 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 FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. 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 or partial clinical hold. In these cases, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials, or parts of the trial, can begin. Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC. 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 may not be allowed to proceed, while other protocols may be allowed. 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, a clinical trial may only resume after the FDA has so notified the sponsor. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the clinical trial 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 FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that such studies are conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects, if the data from such a foreign study is to be used in support of a marketing application. In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial 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 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 product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. 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 as to 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 the competitive environment. Expanded Access Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended 39 Table of Contents to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application. When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational product for the requested treatment will not interfere with the initiation, conduct or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product. There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available for expanded access; however, as required by amendments to the FDCA included in the 21st Century Cures Act passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests with respect to product candidates in development to treat serious diseases or conditions, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial for a covered investigational product; or 15 days after the investigational product receives designation from the FDA as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval. Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the investigational drug product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well controlled, closely monitored and conducted in a limited patient population. A Phase 2 trial may be further subdivided to Phase 2a and Phase 2b trials. A Phase 2a trial is typically an exploratory (non-pivotal) study that has clinical efficacy, pharmacodynamics, or biological activity as the primary endpoint. A Phase 2b trial is a definite dose range finding study with efficacy as the primary endpoint. Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug. Such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.” 40 Table of Contents A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need. In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under Accelerated Approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events 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 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. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted. In March 2022, the FDA released a final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how sponsors can utilize an adaptive trial design in the early stages of oncology product development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to product development and reduce developmental costs and time. Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. The failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to HHS’s long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA has issued several Notices of Noncompliance to manufacturers since April 2021. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies. They must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. Pediatric Studies Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the 41 Table of Contents product is safe and effective. The sponsor must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan within 60 days of an end-of-phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, 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. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, the FDA must send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. FDASIA further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Expedited Review Programs The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates. • Fast Track designation. The sponsor of a product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review. • Breakthrough therapy designation. To qualify for the breakthrough therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review. • Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review. • Accelerated approval. Drug products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and 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 drug product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials. With passage of FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed; and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. 42 Table of Contents Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. • Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Filing and Review of an NDA In order to obtain approval to market a drug product in the United States, a NDA must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for its intended indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The NDA is a vehicle through which sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new product for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. Every new drug product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA before it may be commercialized in the United States. Biologic License Applications, or BLAs, are submitted for licensure of biologic products under the Public Health Service Act. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation, an exception from the program fee when the program does not engage in manufacturing the drug during a particular fiscal year and a waiver for certain small businesses. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application within 60 calendar days of its receipt, and must inform the sponsor within that period of time whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing and, the application may 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 substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which the FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for Priority Review are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. For applications seeking approval of products that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that the FDA receives the application. The review process and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. In connection with its review of an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is being or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the 43 Table of Contents manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the data in the application. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process. In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor to develop a REMS. A REMS uses risk-minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, the seriousness of the disease, the expected benefit of the product, the expected duration of treatment, the seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity. The FDA may also refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that review, evaluate and provide a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but the FDA considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. The FDA’s Decision on an NDA The FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. Ultimately, the FDA will determine whether the expected benefits of the drug product outweigh its potential risks to patients, and the agency will issue either a complete response letter, or CRL, or an approval letter. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six-month extension to respond. For those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the FDA has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution. If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, or require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including a REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS programs can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or 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 patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. The FDA may require a REMS before or after approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes, and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. 44 Table of Contents Post-Approval Requirements Following approval of a new prescription product, the manufacturer, the approved product and the product’s manufacturing locations are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, governing, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product and product problems to the FDA, product sampling and distribution, manufacturing and promotion and advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label uses”), manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. 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 September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes products, as well as adverse public relations and reputational harm. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Patent Term Restoration and Extension A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch- Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it, may be extended. Additionally, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. Healthcare Compliance In the United States, biopharmaceutical manufacturers and their products are subject to extensive regulation at the federal and state level, such as laws intended to prevent fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors, and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to healthcare providers and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including certain laws and regulations applicable only if we have marketed products, include the following: • federal false claims, false statements and civil monetary penalties laws prohibiting, among other things, any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment of government funds or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid; 45 Table of Contents • federal healthcare program anti-kickback law, which prohibits, among other things, persons from offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchasing or ordering of, a good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; • the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which, in addition to privacy protections applicable to healthcare providers and other entities, prohibits executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; • federal laws that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report certain calculated product prices to the government or provide certain discounts or rebates to government authorities or private entities, often as a condition of reimbursement under government healthcare programs; • federal Open Payments (or federal “sunshine” law), which requires pharmaceutical and medical device companies to monitor and report certain financial interactions with certain healthcare providers to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for re-disclosure to the public, as well as ownership and investment interests held by certain healthcare providers and their immediate family members; • federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; • analogous state laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws; state laws requiring pharmaceutical companies to comply with specific compliance standards, restrict financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers or require pharmaceutical companies to report information related to payments to health care providers or marketing expenditures; and state laws governing privacy, security and breaches of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and • laws and regulations prohibiting bribery and corruption such as the FCPA, which, among other things, prohibits U.S. companies and their employees and agents from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to foreign government officials, employees of public international organizations or foreign government-owned or affiliated entities, candidates for foreign public office, and foreign political parties or officials thereof. Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly. Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the EU and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. Privacy Requirements Privacy and data security requirements are either in place or underway in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that may be applicable to our activities, and a range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or the CCPA, which became effective on January 1, 2020, requires companies that process information on California residents to make new disclosures to consumers about their data collection, use and sharing practices, allow consumers to opt out of certain data sharing with third parties and provide a new cause of action for data breaches. Many other states are considering similar legislation, and a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. 46 Table of Contents Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform 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 payers to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate of ours or one of our collaborators is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payers, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for the product. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payer not to cover a product could reduce market acceptance once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payer to payer. In international markets, reimbursement and health care payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In some countries, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage, reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products including those that we are our collaborators may develop. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Pharmaceutical Prices The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, the prior administration issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care. 47 Table of Contents In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments. More recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten 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. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in 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, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. 48 Table of Contents Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety, and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Specifically, however, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union. Clinical Trial Approval On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union, or EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. Beyond streamlining the process, the new Regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu. PRIME Designation in the European Union In March 2016, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee 49 Table of Contents level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Marketing Authorization To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under European Union regulatory systems, a sponsor must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA, or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, sponsors have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Paediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across the European Economic Area (i.e. the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. The centralized procedure may at the request of the sponsor also be used in certain other cases. Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product and for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. At the end of this period, the CHMP provides a scientific opinion on whether or not a marketing authorization should be granted in relation to a medicinal product. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of a final opinion from the CHMP, the European Commission must prepare a draft decision concerning an application for marketing authorization. This draft decision must take the opinion and any relevant provisions of European Union law into account. Before arriving at a final decision on an application for centralized authorization of a medicinal product the European Commission must consult the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is composed of representatives of the EU Member States and chaired by a non-voting European Commission representative. The European Parliament also has a related “droit de regard”. The European Parliament’s role is to ensure that the European Commission has not exceeded its powers in deciding to grant or refuse to grant a marketing authorization. The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such authorization is intended for products for which the sponsor can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the sponsor cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following: • the sponsor must complete an identified program of studies within a time period specified by the competent authority, the results of which form the basis of a reassessment of the benefit/risk profile; • the medicinal product in question may be supplied on medical prescription only and may in certain cases be administered only under strict medical supervision, possibly in a hospital and in the case of a radiopharmaceutical, by an authorized person; and 50 Table of Contents • the package leaflet and any medical information must draw the attention of the medical practitioner to the fact that the particulars available concerning the medicinal product in question are as yet inadequate in certain specified respects. A marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk- benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the marketing authorization being suspended or revoked. The renewal of a marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. Thus, a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal. The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need, and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization. The European Union medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the products we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our products, even if they have been granted a European Union marketing authorization. Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized marketing authorization procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all EU Member States. The mutual recognition procedure similarly is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the marketing authorization of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the marketing authorization delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State. As in the United States, information about clinical trials in support of a marketing application must be submitted within specific timeframes to the European Union (EudraCT) website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ and other countries. Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union In the European Union, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance with the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing 51 Table of Contents authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the European Union market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests, and clinical trials. Periods of Authorization and Renewals A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety, and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five- year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the European Union market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause). Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union took place on January 31, 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or the Agreement, which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the European Union and the United Kingdom will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure until December 31, 2023. Furthermore, while the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the European Union’s GDPR is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will remain lawful under GDPR. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for a transitional period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like an European Union member state in relation to processing and transfers of personal data for four months from January 1, 2021. This may be extended by two further months. After such period, the United Kingdom will be a “third country” under the GDPR unless the European Commission adopts an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has already determined that it considers all of the European Union and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the European and EEA remain unaffected. Pricing Decisions for Approved Products In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available 52 Table of Contents therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, EU Member States have the option to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries. General Data Protection Regulation Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. 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. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The EC initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022. It is unclear if and when the framework will be finalized and whether it will be challenged in court. The uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EU. Human Capital As of February 6, 2023, we had 787 full-time employees, including a total of 344 employees with Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 573 of these employees are located in the United States and 214 of these employees are located in our offices outside of the United States. Additionally, as of February 6, 2023, 33.3% of our full-time employees self-identified as female, 0.4% self-identified as non-binary, and 0.6% chose not to disclose their gender, and 33% of our executive team self-identified as female. Further, 34% of our new hires since January 1, 2022 self-identify as female, 1% self-identify as non-binary, and 1% have chosen not to disclose their gender. As of February 6, 2023, 59% of our full-time employees in the United States self-identified as White, 24% self-identified as Asian, 4% self-identified as having two or 53 Table of Contents more races, 3% self-identified as Black or African American, 2% self-identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 8% chose not to disclose their race or ethnicity. Our employees are our greatest asset and we strive to create a work environment that is inclusive, challenging and rewarding. We are committed to embedding a long-term, formal Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG, strategy within our business, a commitment we refer to as Corporate Sustainability. In 2022, we completed a "double materiality assessment," where we worked to determine the ESG-related topics most important to both our company and our stakeholders. The assessment was informed by both internal and external stakeholders and by key ESG standards and frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This assessment will serve as the foundation for our comprehensive, data-driven, Corporate Sustainability strategy. Among the ESG-related topics identified as most important to our company and stakeholders was Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or DEI, an area we have been dedicated to addressing for many years. Our DEI philosophy is focused on ensuring that our employees feel safe, heard, comfortable, and valued. We continue to focus many of our recruiting efforts on diversifying our candidate pipeline by participating in specific conferences and hosting our own events that promote racial and gender diversity in the science and technology industries, including, for example, a hackathon for female and non-binary engineers and events for female and non-binary Ph.D. candidates. Further, we utilize a standardized interviewing model to reduce unconscious bias and to create a consistent hiring process across our open positions. Our DEI Council was founded in 2021 and is comprised of a select group of senior leaders, Employee Resource Group, or ERG, representatives and passionate employees who meet on a monthly basis to advise on our DEI strategy, priorities, and goals. Our DEI Council also provides a permanent forum for voices to be heard across all levels of the organization. We currently have six ERGs that provide support and sharing of resources while representing and communicating the interest of that group to the company. While our ERG membership directly engages approximately one third of our employees, these forums also provide an environment for community support, professional development, and educational opportunities for our entire employee population. Through our ERG leadership program, ERG leaders are provided with the opportunity to hone leadership skills such as negotiation and public speaking. Additionally, in an effort to advance our DEI aspirations, we have partnered with the Neuroleadership Institute on a learning program to better equip our employees with critical tools and language to talk about inclusion, bias, and leveraging a growth mindset in the workplace. In an industry known for its fierce competition for talent, we have been able to maintain high retention and low turnover rates. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our employee retention rate was 92.9%. Given our financial resources, our industry-leading position in the field of physics-based computational drug discovery and materials science research and our developing proprietary drug discovery programs, we believe that we will continue to be able to fill positions and grow our headcount in support of our software, drug discovery and materials science businesses. We are committed to providing our employees with compensation that meets the expectations of the market and industry norms. We monitor our compensation programs closely using comprehensive industry surveys and data to guide us, and we provide what we consider to be a competitive mix of incentives, including competitive salaries and bonuses, a 401(k) retirement plan with an employer matching contribution, participation in our equity programs, and health and welfare benefits, including, for example, access to a variety of mental health, family care, and reproductive health benefits for our employees based in the United States. We routinely review our compensation practices and analyze the equity of our compensation decisions for all employees. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. We recognize the value of in-person collaboration and relationship building while also being mindful of the needs and priorities our employees have outside of the workplace. Our flexible hybrid work schedule currently gives employees the option of coming into the office two days per week and working remotely the other three. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, employees had the option of coming into the office three days a week and working remotely the other two. We believe that our flexible hybrid schedule allows us to engage with each other and our customers effectively and to continue to advance our business. Our company culture encourages engagement, both among our employees and within the communities we live and work. In the advancement of these efforts, internally, we have a well-regarded mentor program, we have expanded our 54 Table of Contents resonance program to match colleagues to connect over virtual coffee chats globally, updated our management training programs to include mental health and wellness resources, and refreshed our annual review process to encourage more real-time feedback between employees and managers to set and achieve personal performance goals. Some examples of external engagement in our local communities include hosting a student internship program in partnership with a non-profit educational group that supports underserved local high school students who have demonstrated the knowledge, character, and skills to achieve their aspirations. To further our community engagement efforts, each of our employees is provided with a paid full day each year to volunteer in their local community, in addition to our matching gifts program. Our Corporate Information Our principal executive offices are located at 1540 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, New York 10036, and our telephone number is (212) 295-5800. Our website address is http://www.schrodinger.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report or in any other report or document we file with the SEC, and any reference to our website address is intended to be an inactive textual reference only. We own or have rights to trademarks, service marks, and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business, including our corporate name, logos and website names. Other trademarks, service marks, and trade names appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks, and trade names referred to in this Annual Report are listed without the ® and ™ symbols. Available Information We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. We may also disclose information to the public concerning our software, drug discovery programs, computational platform and other items through a variety of disclosure channels in order to achieve broad, non-exclusionary distribution of information to the public. Some of the information distributed through these disclosure channels may be considered material information. Investors and others are encouraged to review the information we make public in the locations below. This list may be updated from time to time. • For information concerning our software, drug discovery programs, computational platform, please visit: https://www.schrodinger.com. • For information provided to the investment community, including news releases, events and presentations, and filings with the SEC, please visit https://ir.schrodinger.com. • For additional information, please follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram, or visit our blog, Extrapolations.com. These websites and social media channels, and the contents thereof, are not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K nor deemed filed with the SEC.