Alaunos Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

Item 1. Business Overview We are a clinical-stage oncology-focused cell therapy company developing adoptive TCR engineered T-cell therapies, or TCR-T, designed to treat multiple solid tumor types in large cancer patient populations with unmet clinical needs. We are leveraging our novel cancer mutation hotspot TCR library and our proprietary, non-viral Sleeping Beauty genetic engineering technology to design and manufacture patient-specific cell therapies that target neoantigens arising from common tumor-related mutations in key oncogenic genes, including KRAS , TP53 and EGFR . In collaboration with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, or MD Anderson, we are currently enrolling patients for a Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating ten TCRs reactive to mutated KRAS , TP53 and EGFR from our TCR library for the investigational treatment of non-small cell lung, colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic, ovarian and bile duct cancers, which we refer to as our TCR-T Library Phase 1/2 Trial. We anticipate treating our first patient in this trial in the second quarter of 2022 and reporting interim data in the second half of 2022. In the United States, solid tumors represent approximately 90% of new cancer diagnoses. Approximately 1.9 million people are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in the United States in 2022 and approximately 609,000 people are expected to die from cancer in the United States in 2022. Some of the cancers we are targeting in our TCR-T Library Phase 1/2 Trial are expected to be among the most prevalent cancers diagnosed in the United States in 2022. In 2022, it is estimated that 236,740 people will be diagnosed with lung and bronchus cancer, 151,030 will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer, 65,950 people will be diagnosed with endometrial cancer, 62,210 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, 19,880 people will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and approximately 7,400 people will be diagnosed with bile duct cancer. Mutations of the KRAS , TP53 and EGFR genes are commonly expressed across a wide variety of cancers. The table below sets forth our multiple solid tumor pipeline programs. Our TCR-T program targeting solid tumors consists of: • TCR Library : We have built a TCR library that targets shared hotspot mutations known to be one of the key causes of cancer. These are non-inherited mutations. We have in-licensed from the National Cancer Institute, or the NCI, multiple TCRs derived from third parties that are reactive to mutated KRAS , TP53 and EGFR . Our TCR library currently consists of ten TCRs targeting six solid tumor indications. • Sleeping Beauty Genetic Engineering Technology : Our proprietary non-viral genetic engineering technology utilizes a particular enzyme referred to as a transposase to cut and paste donor DNA referred to as a transposon into chromosomes of a T cell using a process called transposition. • hunTR ™ ( hu man n eoantigen T cell R eceptor) Discovery Engine : Our robust and innovative TCR discovery engine enables us to rapidly identify new TCRs to add to our ever-expanding TCR library. Using our hunTR discovery engine, we are able to analyze thousands of single T cells simultaneously using state-of-the-art bioinformatics and next generation sequencing. We aim to maximize the breadth of our TCR library by evaluating both helper and killer T cells. The ability to continue discovering new TCRs has the potential to expand the applicable patient population for our ongoing and future clinical trials. We believe our TCR-T program has several potential advantages over other cell therapy approaches for solid tumors, including CAR-T and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TIL. As compared to CAR-T, these potential advantages include that our TCR-T program targets intracellular and extracellular neoantigens whereas CAR-T only targets extracellular antigens. As compared to TIL, these potential advantages include that our TCR-T program has defined target specificity from the genetic engineering employed in manufacturing whereas in TIL there is no further genetic engineering employed. 6 Table of Contents Background on TCRs Our strategy is to target the hallmark of genomic instability in cancer with TCRs. Genes in cancer cells can lead to the production of proteins, which are then processed by the cell into protein fragments known as peptides. These peptides are presented to T cells by a specialized set of molecules on the cancer cell surface called the human leukocyte antigen, or HLA, system. When peptide presentation occurs, and it results in T cell activation through the TCR, the peptides are known as antigens. When these immunogenic peptides are derived from proteins which are in turn expressed from genes that are mutated only in tumor cells (for example, within the cancer genome and not encoded in the germline), they are known as neoantigens. Tumor cells presenting neoantigens via HLA are targets for T cells. T cells can recognize and kill neoantigen-presenting cancer cells. This approach is different from CARs, which directly recognize antigens, such as CD19, such as on the surface of malignant B cells, without the need for presentation by HLA. In general, the immune system avoids targeting the body’s own healthy cells principally through processes known as immune tolerance by which T cells do not respond to HLA containing peptides from normal proteins. The recognition by the TCR of a peptide presented by the HLA system is a vital immune mechanism that allows the body both to respond against foreign threats, including cancer, as well as to avoid targeting the body’s own healthy cells. Tumors utilize a variety of strategies to evade and suppress the host immune system. This often renders T cells residing within the tumor, referred to as TILs, ineffective and, despite expressing tumor-specific TCRs, unable to recycle their effector functions to kill tumors. To overcome immune suppression, healthier T cells are likely needed, such as those found in the peripheral blood. However, these circulating T cells do not typically express tumor-specific TCRs in adequate numbers. Neoantigens are encoded by tumor-specific mutated genes that are often unique to each patient. Targeting these neoantigens requires TCRs that are generated on a patient-by-patient basis. During cancer initiation and progression, tumor cells acquire mutations in naturally occurring genes that are responsible for transformation, known as driver mutations. Some of these driver mutations occur in common places called hotspots and are a class of mutations shared between tumor types and between individuals. Since driver mutations can be anticipated, it is possible to prepare TCRs in advance of a patient’s need and form a library of banked TCRs. Our Approach to Targeting Neoantigens We believe that to be successful in treating solid tumors, genetically modified T cells targeting one or more neoantigens will likely need to address the fact that (1) among a population of patients, not all tumors express the targeted neoantigen, referred to as inter-tumor heterogeneity, and (2) within a single patient, not all tumor cells express the targeted antigen, referred to as intra-tumor heterogeneity. Inter-tumor heterogeneity limits the number of recipients that are eligible to receive a treatment and intra-tumor heterogeneity creates the risk of antigen-escape variants, increasing the likelihood of cancer relapse. As a result, we believe companies developing T cell therapies targeting neoantigens must address both inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity. We genetically modify peripheral blood-derived T cells to express TCRs with specificity to tumor-derived antigens, especially neoantigens, and propagate them to sufficient numbers prior to administration. We aim to overcome the key challenges of targeting neoantigens by using DNA plasmids to reprogram T cells to express introduced TCRs on a patient-by-patient basis. This is designed to help address tumor heterogeneity. Our TCR-T cells contain multiple different subsets of T cells, including effector and memory T cells. The effector T cells are associated with immediate anti-tumor activity. Memory T cells have greater growth potential relative to the effector T cells. Some of our TCR-T cells are T memory stem cells, which have been described to have the largest capacity for growth and renewal relative to other T-cell populations. 7 Table of Contents Our Process The diagram below illustrates our manufacturing process for our current product candidates. Our Library TCR-T approach focuses on what we believe to be the most critical and prevalent tumor-specific targets in cancer. These target mutations, called hotspots, are prevalent in genes including KRAS, TP53 and EGFR, which can be found in non-small cell lung, colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic, ovarian, and bile duct cancers in several different HLA alleles. These driver genes play a key role in regulating cell division, maturation and death, and mutations in these genes have been observed to play a critical role in the development of certain cancers. The advantage of our Library TCR-T approach is that subsets of patients with solid tumors may be rapidly treated by screening them for targeted neoantigens (e.g., KRAS , TP53 and EGFR ), identifying patient HLA, and matching these results to the TCRs in the library. Patients with a variety of different cancers (e.g., non-small cell lung, colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic, ovarian and bile duct cancers) can be screened for a match to our growing TCR library through tumor sequencing and identification of the patient’s tumor mutation and HLA typing. Once a match to our TCR library is confirmed, a portion of the patient’s white blood cells is collected through a peripheral blood leukapheresis and sent to our own cGMP manufacturing facility in Houston, Texas. Once the desired pre-manufactured TCR transposon is selected from our TCR library, we utilize our proprietary non-viral Sleeping Beauty genetic engineering technology to modify the patient’s T cells (both CD4+ and CD8+). We use T cells from peripheral blood, which have a younger and healthier phenotype relative to tumor-resident T cells, to generate our TCR-T cells. Given the product phenotype, we believe these modified TCR-T cells will persist in the recipient following infusion. We have observed in preclinical studies that genetic engineering of T cells by our Sleeping Beauty technology resulted in the rapid and stable expression of the introduced neoantigen-specific TCR. The genetically modified T cells expressing high levels of the TCR are expanded to produce the patient-specific, or autologous, TCR-T cell product. The product candidate is then harvested from the manufacturing process, transferred to the hospital facility, and infused in the patient. Benefits of Our Sleeping Beauty Genetic Engineering Technology Our Sleeping Beauty genetic engineering technology provides several benefits, including those described below. • Scalability and Reduction in Complexity . The Sleeping Beauty technology is a straightforward means to manufacture a large number of autologous T-cell products. The technology requires only the synthesis of DNA plasmids as the starting material for genetic engineering of the T cells. In contrast, traditional viral gene transfer is more complex and requires specialized manufacturing of each viral vector(s) of interest. Production of the viral vector starts with the generation of plasmid DNA with the transgene of interest. This plasmid is then introduced into a packaging cell line and viruses are secreted into the media over a couple of days. This process is inherently more complex to scale with the numbers of cells and associated media required relative to Sleeping Beauty, which only requires the plasmid DNA. Genetic modification of the patient cells using the Sleeping Beauty technology is accomplished through electroporation with the DNA plasmids and subsequent culture, selection and growth of the T cells to large numbers using traditional manufacturing techniques. This simple process can be scaled through addition of manufacturing lines. • Customizable Therapies . We believe our Sleeping Beauty platform provides us with the ability to manufacture more customizable therapies. The platform enables a library of TCRs to be assembled and used in cells to recognize diverse mutations within shared neoantigens and address a multitude of HLA types. We believe this can enable both our current Library TCR-T approach against shared cancer targets as well as personalized TCR therapies against unique, and potentially multiple, personal neoantigens. • Potential Clinical Benefits . We believe the anti-tumor immune response generated by our TCR-T cells has the potential to last as long as the TCR-T cells persist and proliferate following the recognition of the neoantigen on the tumor cell surface. This may lead to durable and progressively greater clinical regression in patients. In CAR-T cell products generated in human cells, Sleeping Beauty transposons have been observed to integrate in a close-to-random distribution at thymine-adenine, or TA, dinucleotide sites, which increases the likelihood 8 Table of Contents of insertion in a genomic safe harbor, thereby making them less likely to cause off-target effects when compared to other transposons and viral gene delivery methods. We also believe that including membrane-bound interleukin-15, or mbIL-15, in TCR-T cells can provide additional benefits. In particular, we have observed that T cells modified to express mbIL-15 as well as a TCR show increased potential for stemness corresponding with an ability to persist longer after infusion. • Technology can accommodate large transgene size . Plasmids manufactured using our Sleeping Beauty technology have a sufficiently large payload size which allows for genetic engineering of both the TCR as well as insertion of a gene encoding for the expression of cytokines, including IL-15. This facilitates uniformly high co-expression of both the TCR and cytokine on a single integrated gene. Pre-Clinical and Clinical Development Pre-clinical Development of our TCR-T Product Candidates We have independently evaluated all licensed TCRs using our Sleeping Beauty technology. Candidate TCRs for clinical translation were selected based on conventional in vitro immunological measurements. We have presented these data at the 2021 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) annual meetings. We selected the TCRs based on their ability to express on the T cell surface and then specifically recognize the mutated target without also targeting healthy cells. For those TCRs that are destined for killer T cells, our pre-clinical data suggested that TCR-T cells can kill the appropriate tumor cell lines expressing the target neoantigen. In our pre-clinical studies we observed TCR-T cells killed significantly more tumor cells when matched with the corresponding HLA and neoantigen relative to mismatched tumor cells and relative to mismatched T cells not expressing the relevant neoantigen-specific TCR. Selected library TCRs have also been co-expressed with mbIL-15 on T cells. This was accomplished with the transfer of a single transposon to deliver three independent genes (TCRalpha, TCRbeta, mbIL-15) to the T cell. We optimized the orientation order of the three genes and the growth conditions specific for the generation of mbIL-15 TCR-T cells. Using similar standard immunologic readouts described above, the mbIL-15 TCR-T cells were observed to display a similar specificity and potency profile to conventional TCR-T cells. We observed increased in vitro survival of mbIL-15 TCR-T cells in the absence of all added support relative to TCR-T cells, especially in the T memory stem cell populations. We have filed an international patent application around this technology and are working towards presenting preclinical data from this program at a major scientific conference in 2022 and filing a related Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, in 2023. TCR-T Library Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial In February 2021, we received FDA clearance for our company-sponsored IND to initiate a Phase 1/2 open-label, dose-escalation trial which is initially being conducted at MD Anderson. In January 2022, after screening patients, we opened enrollment in our TCR-T Library Phase 1/2 Trial and expect to enroll up to 180 adults. We will only enroll patients who have a matched HLA and hotspot mutation that is targeted by one of the TCRs from our TCR library, who have progressive or recurrent solid tumors and who have failed at least one prior line of standard therapy. The trial will evaluate our ten library TCRs targeting neoantigens arising from KRAS , TP53 and EGFR mutations in patients across a broad range of solid tumors that include non-small cell lung, colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic, ovarian, and bile duct cancers, all in a single trial. We anticipate using our hunTR discovery engine to add new TCRs to our library and clinical program as they are qualified by our laboratory. The patients will be enrolled in cohorts according to their cancer and at three separate dose levels. The Phase 1 primary endpoint is to define dose limiting toxicity or the recommended maximum tolerated dose for a subsequent clinical trial. The primary endpoints for the Phase 2 portion of the trial are to determine the objective response rate and otherwise evaluate safety and tolerability. We are also monitoring TCR-T cell persistence and multiple conventional immune monitoring assays in the clinical trial to evaluate this phenomenon in patients. We expect to dose the first patient in the second quarter of 2022 and to provide an interim data update in the second half of 2022. IL-12 Program As we announced in May 2021, we are winding down our existing Controlled IL-12 clinical program for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. We are actively seeking a partner for continued development of this program. Manufacturing In an effort to control costs, and given our internal expertise, we made the strategic decision to focus the manufacturing of our TCR-T cell product candidates in our own facility rather than utilize a third-party contract manufacturer. During 2021, we completed the construction, commissioning and validation of our cGMP facility in Houston, Texas. The facility is staffed by Alaunos personnel and is fully operational for manufacturing TCR T-cells genetically modified with our Sleeping Beauty gene transfer platform for our early-stage clinical trials. We continue to rely on third parties for the production of the DNA plasmids used in manufacturing our product candidates. Our Library TCR-T approach allows us to streamline the T cell manufacturing process by pre-manufacturing DNA plasmids corresponding to each of our qualified library TCRs. These TCRs are then utilized in the manufacturing for the patient-specific, autologous TCR-T product candidates. Our in-house TCR-T manufacturing facility also allows us to integrate our research and development capabilities, potentially reducing the time from discovery to treating patients in a clinical trial. This integration is designed to minimize delays and reduce risks that can be encountered in drug development, including the failure of third parties to successfully produce the desired product, long technology transfer periods and long lead times for orders. 9 Table of Contents We seek continuous improvement in our manufacturing and release workflow through process and analytical development. Our processes will continue to be optimized to increase efficiencies, incorporate new technologies and reduce time to treatment for the patient. Intellectual Property Our goal is to obtain, maintain, and enforce patent and trade secret protection for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods, and other proprietary technologies. We strive to preserve our trade secrets and other confidential information and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of other parties. Our policy is to actively seek the strongest possible intellectual property protection for our technology and product candidates through a combination of license agreements and owned patents, both in the United States and abroad. Owned Patents As of December 31, 2021, we have four families of pending patent applications that cover our TCR-T library, products, and processes. We do not currently own any granted patents. Patent terms extend for varying periods according to the date of patent filing or grant and the legal patent terms in the various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection offering by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends on the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the issued claims and the availability of legal remedies in the country. Pursuant to the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, some of our patents, under certain conditions, may be eligible for limited patent term extension for a period of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during drug development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, this extension period cannot be extended beyond 14 years from the drug’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the period of time elapsed between the effective date of an IND application or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later. The submission date of a New Drug Application, or NDA, plus the period of time between the submission date of the NDA or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and FDA approval. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves applications for any patent term extension or restoration. We intend to seek the benefits of this statute, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such benefits. We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, and experience of our scientific and technical employees, as well as those of our advisors, consultants, and other contractors, none of which may be patentable. To help protect unpatentable proprietary know-how, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently rely, and in the future, will continue to rely, on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. Our patent position and proprietary rights are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Please read the “ Risk Related to Our Intellectual Property ” section for further information about certain risks and uncertainties that may affect our patent position and proprietary rights. License Agreements Exclusive License Agreement with PGEN Therapeutics On October 5, 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement, or License Agreement, with PGEN Therapeutics, or PGEN, a wholly owned subsidiary of Precigen Inc., or Precigen, which was formerly known as Intrexon Corporation. As between us and PGEN, the terms of the License Agreement replace and supersede the terms of: (a) that certain Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement by and between us and Precigen, dated January 6, 2011, as amended by the First Amendment to Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective September 13, 2011, the Second Amendment to the Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective March 27, 2015, and the Third Amendment to Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective June 29, 2016, which was subsequently assigned by Precigen to PGEN; (b) certain rights and obligations pursuant to that certain License and Collaboration Agreement effective March 27, 2015 between us, Precigen and ARES TRADING S.A., or Ares Trading, a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, or Merck, as assigned by Precigen to PGEN, or the Ares Trading Agreement; (c) that certain License Agreement between us, Precigen, and MD Anderson, with an effective date of January 13, 2015, or the MD Anderson License, which was subsequently assigned by Precigen and assumed by PGEN effective as of January 1, 2018; and (d) that certain research and development agreement between us, Precigen and MD Anderson with an effective date of August 17, 2015, or the 2015 R&D Agreement, and any amendments or statements of work thereto. Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, we have exclusive, worldwide rights to research, develop and commercialize (i) TCR products designed for neoantigens for the treatment of cancer, (ii) products utilizing Precigen’s RheoSwitch® gene switch, or RTS, for the treatment of cancer, referred to as IL-12 Products and (iii) CAR products directed to (A) CD19 for the treatment of cancer, referred to as CD19 Products, and (B) BCMA for the treatment of cancer, subject to certain obligations to pursue such target under the Ares Trading Agreement. Under the License Agreement, we also have exclusive, worldwide rights for certain patents relating to the Sleeping Beauty technology to research, develop and commercialize TCR products for both neoantigens and shared antigens for the treatment of cancer, referred to as TCR Products. We are solely responsible for all aspects of the research, development and commercialization of the exclusively licensed products for the treatment of cancer. We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts, as defined in the License Agreement, to develop and commercialize IL-12 products, CD19 products and TCR Products. 10 Table of Contents In consideration of the licenses and other rights granted by PGEN, we will pay PGEN an annual license fee of $100,000 and we have agreed to reimburse PGEN for certain historical costs of the licensed programs up to $1.0 million, which was fully paid during the year ending December 31, 2019. We will make milestone payments totaling up to an additional $52.5 million for each exclusively licensed program upon the initiation of later stage clinical trials and upon the approval of exclusively licensed products in various jurisdictions. In addition, we will pay PGEN tiered royalties ranging from low-single digit to high-single digit on the net sales derived from the sales of any approved IL-12 products and CAR products. We will also pay PGEN royalties ranging from low-single digit to mid-single digit on the net sales derived from the sales of any approved TCR products, up to a maximum royalty amount of $100.0 million in the aggregate. We will also pay PGEN twenty percent of any sublicensing income received by us relating to the licensed products. We are responsible for all development costs associated with each of the licensed products. PGEN will pay us royalties ranging from low-single digits to mid-single digits on the net sales derived from the sale of PGEN’s CAR products, up to a maximum royalty amount of $100.0 million. In consideration of our entry into the License Agreement, PGEN forfeited and returned to us all shares of our Series 1 preferred stock. The transaction represented a capital transaction between related parties and the settlement was accounted for during the year ended December 31, 2018. In October 2020, we entered into an amendment to the License Agreement relating to the transfer of certain materials and PGEN’s obligations to provide transition assistance relating to the IL-12 products. License Agreement and 2015 Research and Development Agreement-The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center On January 13, 2015, we, together with Precigen, entered into the MD Anderson License with MD Anderson (which Precigen subsequently assigned to PGEN). Pursuant to the MD Anderson License, we, together with PGEN, hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain technologies owned and licensed by MD Anderson including technologies relating to novel CAR T-cell therapies, non-viral gene transfer systems, genetic modification and/or propagation of immune cells and other cellular therapy approaches, Natural Killer, or NK Cells, and TCRs, arising from the laboratory of Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Cooper served as our Chief Executive Officer from May 2015 until February 2021 and was formerly a tenured professor of pediatrics at MD Anderson. On August 17, 2015, the Company, Precigen and MD Anderson entered into the 2015 R&D Agreement to formalize the scope and process for the transfer by MD Anderson, pursuant to the terms of the MD Anderson License, of certain existing research programs and related technology rights, as well as the terms and conditions for future collaborative research and development of new and ongoing research programs. The rights and obligations of Precigen under the 2015 R&D Agreement were assigned to us pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the 2015 R&D Agreement which was entered into on September 19, 2019 (the “Fourth Amendment”) with an effective date of October 5, 2018. The activities under the 2015 R&D Agreement are directed by a joint steering committee comprised of two members from our company and one member from MD Anderson. As provided under the MD Anderson License, we provided funding for research and development activities in support of the research programs under the 2015 R&D Agreement for a period of three years and in an amount of no less than $15.0 million and no greater than $20.0 million per year. On November 14, 2017, we entered into an amendment to the 2015 R&D Agreement extending its term until April 15, 2021 and on October 22, 2019, we entered into another amendment to the 2015 R&D Agreement extending its term until December 31, 2026. The term of the MD Anderson License expires on the last to occur of (a) the expiration of all patents licensed thereunder, or (b) the twentieth anniversary of the date of the MD Anderson License; provided, however, that following the expiration of the term of the MD Anderson License, we, together with Precigen, shall then have a fully-paid up, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sublicensable license to use the licensed intellectual property thereunder. After ten years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 90-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to convert the MD Anderson License into a non-exclusive license if we and Precigen are not using commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed intellectual property on a case-by-case basis. After five years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 180-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to terminate the MD Anderson License with respect to specific technology(ies) funded by the government or subject to a third-party contract if we and Precigen are not meeting the diligence requirements in such funding agreement or contract, as applicable. MD Anderson may also terminate the agreement with written notice upon material breach by us and Precigen, if such breach has not been cured within 60 days of receiving such notice. In addition, the MD Anderson License will terminate upon the occurrence of certain insolvency events for both us and Precigen and may be terminated by the mutual written agreement of us, Precigen, and MD Anderson. In connection with the execution of the 2019 R&D Agreement described below, on October 22, 2019, we amended the 2015 R&D Agreement to extend the term of the 2015 R&D Agreement until December 31, 2026 and to allow cash resources on hand at MD Anderson under the 2015 R&D Agreement to be used for development costs under the 2019 R&D Agreement. 2019 Research and Development Agreement-The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center On October 22, 2019, we entered into the 2019 Research and Development Agreement, or the 2019 R&D Agreement, with MD Anderson pursuant to which the parties agreed to collaborate with respect to the TCR program. Under the 2019 R&D Agreement, the parties will, among 11 Table of Contents other things, collaborate on programs to expand our TCR library and conduct clinical trials. The activities under the 2019 R&D Agreement are directed by a joint steering committee comprised of two members from our company and one member from MD Anderson. We will own all inventions and intellectual property developed under the 2019 R&D Agreement and we will retain all rights to intellectual property for oncology products manufactured using non-viral gene transfer technologies under the 2019 R&D Agreement, including our Sleeping Beauty technology. We have granted MD Anderson an exclusive license for such intellectual property outside the field of oncology and to develop and commercialize TCR products manufactured using viral gene transfer technologies, and a non-exclusive license for TCR products manufactured using viral-based technologies. Under the 2019 R&D Agreement, we agreed, beginning on January 1, 2021, to reimburse MD Anderson up to a total of $20 million for development costs under the 2019 R&D Agreement, after the funds from the 2015 R&D Agreement are exhausted. In addition, we will pay MD Anderson royalties on net sales of its TCR products at rates in the low single digits. We are required to make performance-based payments upon the successful completion of clinical and regulatory benchmarks relating to its TCR products. The aggregate potential benchmark payments are $36.5 million, of which only $3.0 million will be due prior to the first marketing approval of our TCR products. The royalty rates and benchmark payments owed to MD Anderson may be reduced upon the occurrence of certain events. We also agreed to sell our TCR products to MD Anderson at preferential prices and will sell our TCR products in Texas exclusively to MD Anderson for a limited period of time following the first commercial sale of our TCR products. For the year ended December 31, 2021, we incurred expenses of $0.5 million related to this agreement. The 2019 R&D Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2026 and either party may terminate the 2019 R&D Agreement following written notice of a material breach. The 2019 R&D Agreement also contains customary provisions related to indemnification obligations, confidentiality and other matters. In connection with the execution of the 2019 R&D Agreement, on October 22, 2019, we issued MD Anderson a warrant to purchase 3,333,333 shares of our common stock, which is referred to as the MD Anderson Warrant. The MD Anderson Warrant has an initial exercise price of $0.001 per share, expires on December 31, 2026 and vests upon the occurrence of certain clinical milestones. As of December 31, 2021, none of the milestones have been met. The MD Anderson Warrant and the shares of our common stock to be issued upon exercise of the MD Anderson Warrant have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements. License Agreement with the NCI On May 28, 2019, we entered into a patent license agreement, or the Patent License, with the NCI. Pursuant to the Patent License, we hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain intellectual property to develop and commercialize patient-derived (autologous), peripheral blood T-cell therapy products engineered by transposon-mediated gene transfer to express TCRs reactive to mutated KRAS , TP53 and EGFR neoantigens. In addition, pursuant to the Patent License, we hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain intellectual property for manufacturing technologies to develop and commercialize autologous, peripheral blood T-cell therapy products engineered by non-viral gene transfer to express TCRs, as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain additional manufacturing technologies. On May 29, 2019, January 8, 2020, September 28, 2020, April 16, 2021, May 4, 2021, and August 13, 2021 we amended the Patent License to expand our TCR library to include additional TCRs reactive to mutated KRAS and TP53 neoantigens licensed from the NCI. Pursuant to the terms of the Patent License, we are required to pay the NCI a cash payment in the aggregate amount of $1.5 million payable in $0.5 million installments within sixty days, six-months, and the twelve-month anniversary of the effective date of the agreement for the Patent License. We also reimbursed the NCI for past patent expenses in the aggregate amount of approximately $46,000. Under the amendment to the patent license signed in January 2020, we agreed to pay the NCI a cash payment of $600,000 within sixty days of the amendment and under the amendment to the patent license signed in September 2020, we agreed to pay the NCI a cash payment of $411,000 within sixty days of the amendment. The terms of the Patent License also require us to pay the NCI minimum annual royalties in the amount of $0.3 million, which amount will be reduced to $0.1 million once the aggregate minimum annual royalties paid by us equals $1.5 million. We are also required to make performance-based payments upon successful completion of clinical and regulatory benchmarks relating to the licensed products. Of such payments, the aggregate potential benchmark payments are $4.3 million, of which aggregate payments of $3.0 million are due only after marketing approval in the United States or in Europe, Japan, Australia, China or India. The first benchmark payment of $0.1 million will be due upon the initiation of our first sponsored Phase 1 clinical trial of a licensed product or licensed process in the field of use licensed under the Patent License. In addition, we are required to pay the NCI one-time benchmark payments following aggregate net sales of licensed products at certain aggregate net sales ranging from $250.0 million to $1.0 billion. The aggregate potential amount of these benchmark payments is $12.0 million. We must also pay the NCI royalties on net sales of products covered by the Patent License at rates in the low to mid-single digits depending upon the technology included in a licensed product. To the extent we enter into a sublicensing agreement relating to a licensed product, we are required to pay the NCI a percentage of all consideration received from a sublicensee, which percentage will decrease based on the stage of development of the licensed product at the time of the sublicense. 12 Table of Contents The Patent License will expire upon expiration of the last patent contained in the licensed patent rights, unless terminated earlier. The NCI may terminate or modify the Patent License in the event of a material breach, including if we do not meet certain milestones by certain dates, or upon certain insolvency events that remain uncured following the date that is 90 days following written notice of such breach or insolvency event. We may terminate the Patent License, or any portion thereof, in our sole discretion at any time upon 60 days’ written notice to the NCI. In addition, the NCI has the right to: (i) require us to sublicense the rights to the product candidates covered by the Patent License upon certain conditions, including if we are not reasonably satisfying required health and safety needs and (ii) terminate or modify the Patent License, including if we are not satisfying requirements for public use as specified by federal regulations. Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the NCI On January 9, 2017, we entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, with the NCI. The purpose of this collaboration was to advance a personalized TCR-T approach for the treatment of solid tumors. Using our Sleeping Beauty technology, NCI would analyze a patient’s own cancer cells, identify their unique neoantigens and TCRs reactive against those neoantigens and then use our Sleeping Beauty technology to transpose one or more TCRs into T cells for re-infusion. Research conducted under the CRADA will be at the direction of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch at the NCI, in collaboration with our researchers and PGEN researchers. We are responsible for providing NCI with the test materials necessary for them to conduct their studies, and eventually, clinical trials pursuant to the CRADA. Inventions, data and materials discovered or produced in connection with performance of the research plan under the CRADA will remain the sole property of the party who produced the discovery. The parties will jointly own all inventions jointly discovered under the research plan. The owner of any invention under the CRADA will make the decision to file a patent covering the invention, or in the case of a jointly owned invention, we will have the first opportunity to file a patent covering the invention. If we fail to provide timely notice of our decision to NCI or decide not to file a patent covering the joint invention, NCI has the right to make the filing. For any invention solely owned by NCI or jointly made by NCI and us for which a patent application was filed, the U.S. Public Health service grants us an exclusive option to elect an exclusive or non-exclusive commercialization license. For inventions owned solely by NCI or jointly owned by NCI and us, which are licensed according to the terms described above, we agreed to grant to the U.S. government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable and paid up license to practice the invention or have the invention practiced on its behalf throughout the world. We are also required to grant the U.S. government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable and paid up license to practice the invention or have the invention practiced on its behalf throughout the world for any of our solely owned inventions. The agreement may be terminated by any of the parties upon 60 days prior written consent. The NCI has a cleared IND that would permit them to begin this trial. To our knowledge, the trial has not yet enrolled due to matters internal to the NCI and unrelated to our technology. The progress and timeline for this trial, including the timeline for dosing patients, are under control of the NCI. In February 2019, we extended the CRADA with the NCI until January 9, 2022, committing an additional $5.0 million to this program. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we made payments of $2.5 million and during the year ended December 31, 2021, we paid $1.25 million, pursuant to the CRADA. For the third and fourth quarters of 2021, we were not required to make payments towards the program as agreed with the NCI. In March 2022, we entered into an amendment to the CRADA that is retroactive, effective January 9, 2022 to extend the term of the CRADA until January 9, 2023. TCR-T Platform Licenses In January 2015, we in-licensed from MD Anderson a technology portfolio that includes intellectual property directed to certain non-viral Sleeping Beauty technologies as well as TCR-T cell therapy and bioprocessing technology. Under the terms of the agreement, we have an exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property technology, a co-exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property technology and a non-exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property technology. Our rights to the MD Anderson intellectual property flow to us via our agreement with PGEN. In May 2019, we in-licensed from NCI a patent portfolio that includes intellectual property related to our TCR-T cell library. Under the terms of the agreement, we hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain intellectual property to develop, manufacture and commercialize patient-derived (autologous), peripheral blood T-cell therapy products engineered by transposon-mediated gene transfer to express TCRs reactive to mutated KRAS , TP53 and EGFR neoantigens. In addition, we hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain intellectual property for manufacturing technologies to develop and commercialize autologous, peripheral blood T-cell therapy products engineered by non-viral gene transfer to express certain TCRs, as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain additional manufacturing technologies. Governmental Regulation and Product Approval As a biopharmaceutical company, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our genetically engineered T-cell product candidates are regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered and licensed facilities in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, for biologics. 13 Table of Contents Human immunotherapy products are a new category of therapeutics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a BLA, for marketing authorization. Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries and jurisdictions, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, preclinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, sale, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. U.S. Product Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates biological products under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. Products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters and similar public notice of alleged non-compliance with laws, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be approved for marketing in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to Good Laboratory Practices, or GLPs, and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use; • preparation and submission to the FDA of a BLA, for marketing approval that includes substantive evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials; • satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP to assure that the facilities, methods and controls used in product manufacture are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current Good Tissue Practices, or GTPs, for the use of human cellular and tissue products; • potential FDA audit of the nonclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; • payment of user fees for FDA review of the BLA; and • FDA acceptance, review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA, which might include review by an advisory committee, a panel typically consisting of independent clinicians and other experts who provide recommendations as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The clinical trial sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA before clinical testing can begin in the United States. An IND must contain the results of the preclinical tests, manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, a proposed clinical protocol, an investigator’s brochure, a sample informed consent form, and other materials. Clinical trial protocols detail, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing, such as toxicity studies, may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials or places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must 14 Table of Contents resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules also must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1 . The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients with the target disease or condition. • Phase 2 . The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule. • Phase 3 . Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk to benefit profile of the product and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board, an independent group of experts that evaluates study data for safety and makes recommendations concerning continuation, modification, or termination of clinical trials, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional nonclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. The FDA has a fast track designation program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug or biologic products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs or biologics are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Unique to a fast 15 Table of Contents track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for approved biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is 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 of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the biological product, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the GTPs, to the extent applicable. These are FDA regulations and guidance documents that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA GTP regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a Complete Response Letter, which generally outlines the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Even with the submission of additional information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. The FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data 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 product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Post-Approval Requirements 16 Table of Contents Any products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, with manufacturing processes, or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, complete withdrawal from the market, product recalls, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, product seizure or detention, injunctions, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development. Moreover, the FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label, although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. U.S. Marketing Exclusivity The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved pursuant to an abbreviated pathway whereby applicants need not submit the full slate of preclinical and clinical data, and approval is based in part on the FDA’s findings of safety, purity, and potency for the original biologic (i.e., the reference product). Reference products are eligible to receive 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, which prevents the FDA from approving any biosimilars to the reference product through the abbreviated pathway, but does not prevent approval of BLAs that are accompanied by a full data package and that do not rely on the reference product. A biosimilar may be approved if the product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and there are no clinically meaningful differences with the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biologic product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting a marketing application. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user fee waivers. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or 17 Table of Contents obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union, or EU, has similar but not identical benefits in that jurisdiction. Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in significant part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity of and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and/or the price of, any product candidate which obtains marketing approval. Even if coverage and reimbursement is obtained for a given product candidate by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with those medications. Patients are unlikely to use a product, and physicians may be less likely to prescribe a product, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of the product. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new drug product acceptance. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics, has become very intense. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide favorable coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. 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 we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Health Care Laws Governing Interactions with Healthcare Providers Healthcare providers, and third-party payors in the United States play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products. Arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufactures to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws, including false claims, privacy and security, price reporting, and physician sunshine laws or regulations. Some of our pre-commercial activities are subject to some of these laws. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect a pharmaceutical manufacture’s ability to operate include, but are not limited to: • The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which regulates our business activities, including our marketing practices, educational programs, pricing policies, and relationships with healthcare providers or other entities, by prohibiting, among other things, soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual or the purchase or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; • Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act which permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent; • The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal civil and criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; • HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information on entities and individuals subject to the law including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and 18 Table of Contents healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as individuals and entities that perform services for them which involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, known as business associates as well as their covered subcontractors; • Requirements to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, certain financial arrangements with physicians and teaching hospitals, as defined in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, and its implementing regulations, including reporting any “transfer of value” made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and reporting any ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and applicable group purchasing organizations during the preceding calendar year. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report such information regarding its payments and other transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives during the previous year; and • State and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts certain payments that may be made to healthcare providers and entities; state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfer of value to physicians and other healthcare providers and entities; state laws that require the reporting of information related to drug pricing; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security 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. Efforts to ensure that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and it is not successful in defending itself or asserting its rights, it may be subject to the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. In addition, the approval and commercialization of drug products outside the United States may also subject a pharmaceutical manufacturer to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. Healthcare Reform Efforts A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Over the last several years, there have been federal and state proposals and legislation enacted regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, and making changes to healthcare financing and the delivery of care in the United States. In March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed healthcare financing by both governmental and private insurers. The provisions of the ACA of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are, among others, the following: • created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drug agents or biologic agents, which is apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs; • increased the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively; • created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts to negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; • extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, unless the drug is subject to discounts under the 340B drug discount program; • created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; • expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; • expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program; • created a new requirement to annually report drug samples that certain manufacturers and authorized distributors provide to physicians; 19 Table of Contents • expanded healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance; • created new requirements under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act for drug manufacturers to annually report information related to payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals as well as ownership or investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; • created a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; • established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending; and • created a licensure framework for follow on biologic products. There have been executive, legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, President Trump signed several executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation to repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, included a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” Further, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business. In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief support legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Medicare Quality Payment Program. Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or 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 implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until 20 Table of Contents March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly enacted legislation and implemented 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. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act and Other Laws The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, prohibits any United States individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts. Our operations are also subject to non-United States anti-corruption laws such as the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or the Bribery Act. As with the FCPA, these laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense. We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States and authorities in the EU, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as trade control laws. Failure to comply with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and trade control laws could subject us to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses. Competition We believe our novel hunTR discovery engine has a demonstrated ability to identify proprietary TCRs allowing us to further expand and advance our pipeline with multiple solid tumor programs under development. In addition, our non-viral transposon method of expressing TCRs, Sleeping Beauty, is less complex relative to many of our competitors’ viral approaches. Finally, our TCR-T Phase 1/2 Library Trial is designed to allow us to treat patients quickly and efficiently in many different indications with a tumor mutation and HLA matching one of the TCRs in our library, which we believe gives us a distinct competitive advantage. However, the development and commercialization for new products to treat cancer, including the indications we are pursuing, is highly competitive and considerable competition exists from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty cancer companies. Many of these companies have more experience in preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory, and global commercialization. Given the rapidly advancing and changing science and technologies in the industry, they may compete with us in hiring personnel, setting up clinical study sites, recruiting patients for clinical trials, and procuring technologies and licenses complementary to, or required for our programs. We are also competing with academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private organizations that are conducting research in the field of cancer. Our TCR-T cell therapies targeting solid tumors face significant competition from multiple companies, and their collaborators, in the TCR and CAR technology space. We face competition from several companies, including Achilles Therapeutics, Adaptimmune Therapeutics in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline, Affini-T Therapeutics, ArsenalBio, bluebird bio, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immatics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lion TCR, Lyell Immunopharma, Medigene, Nurix Therapeutics, Neogene Therapeutics, NexImmune, PACT Pharma, Precigen, Tactiva Therapeutics, Takara Bio, TCR2 Therapeutics, T-knife Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, TScan Therapeutics, Turnstone Biologics, Zelluna Immunotherapy and others. Many of these companies are either investigating TCR-T cells against germline antigens or are utilizing tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). Some are pursuing CAR-T cells for solid tumors. In contrast, we are focused on developing TCR-T cell products against neoantigens arising from somatic mutations in solid tumors. Companies in the T-cell therapy segment that have target discovery platforms like ours include Adaptive Therapeutics, Affini-T Therapeutics, Immatics, Enara Bio, T-knife Therapeutic, TScan Therapeutics and 3T Biosciences. Several companies, including Advaxis, Amgen, BioNTech, Geneos Therapeutics, and Gritstone Oncology, are pursuing vaccine platforms to target neoantigens for solid tumors. Other companies are 21 Table of Contents developing non-viral gene therapies, including Poseida Therapeutics and several companies developing CRISPR technology, including Crispr Therapeutics. Several companies are pursuing the development of allogeneic CAR-T therapies, including Allogene Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, Precision Biosciences, and Servier (in collaboration with Cellectis) which may compete with our product candidates. We also face competition from companies developing therapies using cells other than T cells such as Athenex, Fate Therapeutics, ImmunityBio, IN8bio, Nkarta and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Other competitors are developing T cells with cytokines such as Fate Therapeutics and Obsidian Therapeutics. Finally, we also face competition from non cell-based treatments offered by other companies such as Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, and Roche. We face competition on a broader spectrum of the oncology market that is more common, cost-effective, and reimbursable such as surgery, radiation, and other drug therapies like chemotherapy, hormone therapy, biologic therapy such as monoclonal and bispecific antibodies, or a combination of any of these therapies. If any of our TCR-T therapies are approved, they may not be as competitive as other therapies, to the extent they are used in combinations with these therapies. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage use of certain products, thus, gaining market acceptance or market share for any of our TCR-T therapies could pose difficulties. Finally, standard of care could evolve or change throughout the clinical development of our product candidates. Moreover, if our competitors develop and market a drug that is safer, more effective with fewer side effects, easier to administer, or less expensive, we could see a less favorable market opportunity for our TCR-T therapy candidates. Our competition may also receive FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more quickly than we do, which could give them a first mover advantage and a strong market position before we are able to commercialize our products. If approved, key competitive factors that may affect the success of our TCR-T candidates are likely their efficacy, safety, ease of administering, price, and reimbursement from insurance or government. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of March 15, 2022, we had 41 full-time employees and no part-time employees, 33 of whom were engaged in research and development activities, and 8 of whom were engaged in administration. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement and we believe our relations with our employees are good. Our human capital resources objectives include identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. We recruit the best people for the position regardless of gender, ethnicity or other protected traits and it is our policy to fully comply with all laws applicable to discrimination in the workplace. Our diversity, equity and inclusion principles are also reflected in our employee training and policies. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards. Corporate Information We originally incorporated in Colorado in September 1998 (under the name Net Escapes, Inc.) and later changed our name to “EasyWeb, Inc.” in February 1999. We re-incorporated in Delaware on May 16, 2005 under the same name. On September 13, 2005, we completed a “reverse” acquisition of privately held Ziopharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation. To effect this transaction, we caused ZIO Acquisition Corp., our wholly-owned subsidiary, to merge with and into Ziopharm, Inc., with Ziopharm, Inc. surviving as our wholly owned subsidiary. Following the merger, we caused Ziopharm, Inc. to merge with and into us and we changed our name to “Ziopharm Oncology, Inc.” As a result, Ziopharm, Inc. became the registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and the historical financial statements of Ziopharm, Inc. became our historical financial statements. On January 25, 2022, we filed a Certificate of Amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation with the Delaware Secretary of State to change our name to Alaunos Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 8080 El Rio Street, Houston, Texas 77054, and our telephone number is (346) 355-4099. Available Information Our website address is www.alaunos.com. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We file reports with the SEC, which we make available on our website free of charge. These reports include annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports, each of which is provided on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the SEC. In addition, the SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC. 22 Table of Contents