Xenetic Biosciences, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1 – BUSINESS Overview We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing innovative immune-oncology technologies addressing hard to treat cancers. Our proprietary DNase platform is designed to improve outcomes of existing treatments, including immunotherapies, by targeting NETs, which have been implicated in cancer progression and resistance to cancer treatments. The DNase platform is designed to target NETs, which are weblike structures composed of extracellular chromatin coated with histones and other proteins. NETs are expelled by activated neutrophils, in response to microbial or pro-inflammatory challenges. However, excessive production or reduced clearance of NETs can lead to aggravated inflammatory, hypercoagulability and autoimmune pathologies, as well as creation of pro-tumorigenic niches in the case of cancer growth and metastasis. We are focused on advancing the development of our DNase platform toward a first-in-human, multicenter, dose escalation and dose-expansion study of IV rhDNase I in subjects with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Our systemic DNase program is initially targeting multi-billion-dollar indications including pancreatic cancer (which includes pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDAC”)), colorectal carcinoma (“CRC”) and other gastrointestinal cancers. These are all cancer indications with significant unmet need, and with opportunities for substantial improvement of the currently available therapeutic options. PDAC has a low rate of early diagnosis, a high mortality rate and a poor five-year survival prognosis. Symptoms are usually non-specific and as a result, PDAC is often not diagnosed until it reaches an advanced stage. Once the disease has metastasized, or spread to other organs, it becomes especially hard to treat. Each year, about 185,000 individuals globally are diagnosed with this condition; and in 2021, the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, or SEER, of the National Cancer Institute estimated that in the United States there would be approximately 60,000 individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The overall five-year survival rate among pancreatic cancer patients is 7-8%, which constitutes the highest mortality rate among solid tumor malignancies; among those diagnosed with metastatic disease, the overall five-year survival rate is only 3%. Recent developments that have improved the survival in many cancer types have not been effective for pancreatic cancer patients, highlighting the urgent need for the development of newer, more effective therapeutic options. For those few patients that present with earlier stage PDAC, surgical resection followed by chemotherapy is possible, but for the majority of PDAC patients which present at diagnosis with advanced disease, chemotherapy is the only option, and has only very limited benefit. Second-line patients that were diagnosed already with metastatic disease have even fewer therapeutic options. The only approved regimen for second-line patients is Onivyde® in combination with 5FU and LV. For these Stage IV at diagnosis patients reaching second-line therapy, median overall survival is only 4.7 months (Macarulla et al, Pancreas 2020 ). CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States after lung cancer. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and the second in females, globally, according to the World Health Organization GLOBOCAN database. In the United States, CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. According to data from the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (“SEER) Program, it is estimated that in 2023 approximately 153,000 individuals in the U.S. will be diagnosed with colon cancer, and an estimated 53,000 will die of the disease. CRC is in decline in older patients (>65 years) but that is offset by a steady increase in CRC diagnoses and deaths in individuals younger than 55 years of age. Despite continued overall declines, CRC is rapidly shifting to diagnosis at a younger age, at a more advanced stage, and in the left colon/rectum. If CRC is diagnosed at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate is 91%. However, if the cancer has spread to surrounding tissues or organs and/or the regional lymph nodes, the 5-year relative survival rate is 72%. There are numerous treatment options for earlier stage CRC patients, but as they progress to advanced and metastatic disease (“mCRC”), those options become limited. Approximately 22% of CRC cases have metastasis at presentation, and 19% will develop metastasis after primary tumor removal. Unfortunately, if CRC has spread to distant parts of the body, the 5-year relative survival rate is 13%. 1 All major guidelines recommend patients with mCRC undergo testing of DNA for high DNA microsatellite instability (MSI-H), a mutation found in approximately 10% of all CRC, and up to 5% of mCRC. CRC patients that are MSI-H/MMRd (or “mismatch repair deficient”) are candidates for immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors (“ICIs”); at present, there are three ICIs approved for MSI-H/MMRd CRC – Keytruda, Opdivo (anti-PD-1 antibodies) and Yervoy (anti-CTLA-4 antibody). While the ICI response rates in this small subset of CRC are encouraging at around 50%, a significant number of patients are resistant, or become refractory to ICI therapy. However, the vast majority of mCRC patients (>90%) are microsatellite stable (“MSS”) and mismatch repair proficient (“MMRp”), where ICIs have not been shown to provide benefit. The lack of ICI response in this subset is due to poor immunogenicity and immunosuppression. Again, this highlights the urgent need for the development of newer, more effective therapeutic options. A substantial amount of scientific literature has implicated NETs in the context of cancer pathogenesis and resistance to cancer therapies (including chemo, radio, and immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors and cell therapies). In published reports, elevated levels of NETs have been a biomarker associated with poor prognosis in patients with a variety of cancers and in particular, in gastrointestinal cancers. In addition, resistance to existing therapeutic agents can involve the release of immunosuppressive signaling factors from NETs, or physical barriers created by NETs, which can impede the infiltration, activity, and survival of cytotoxic T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Published pre-clinical models have demonstrated the effectiveness of systemically administered DNase, alone or in combination with other agents, for the elimination of NETs and prevention of tumor growth and metastasis. We are currently focused on advancing our systemic DNase program into the clinic as an adjunctive therapy for pancreatic carcinoma and locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, including CRC. Adoptive transfer of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (“CAR”) T cells has emerged as one of the most promising advances in cancer immunotherapy. To successfully treat solid tumors, CAR T cells must be able to infiltrate, persist, and maintain anti-tumor function in a hostile tumor microenvironment that is itself adept at immunosuppression and conducive to tumor cell survival. Recent approaches to CAR T design include “armored” CAR-T cells, so named because they can express additional factors to resist immunosuppression or degrade physical components of the tumor’s extracellular matrix, including NETs. We intend to conduct pre-clinical research with the goal of demonstrating that armoring CAR T cells to secrete DNase can support depth and durability of response against solid tumor indications. Engineered CAR T cells, designed to recognize cancer-associated antigens, are capable of sustained and selective killing of tumor cells, with substantial reduction of tumor burden. CAR T therapies have exhibited remarkable clinical success against hematological malignancies but thus far have failed to demonstrate success in the context of solid tumors. Published evidence suggests that in addition to immunosuppressive factors, mechanical barriers formed by NETs can impede T-cell penetration and occlude T-cell contact with tumor cells. The conduct of several CAR T in vivo models has been a primary focus of our Scripps collaboration. Our collaboration with Belgian Volition SARL Limited (“Volition”) is an early exploratory program to evaluate the potential combination of Volition’s Nu.Q® technology and Xenetic’s DNase-Armored CAR T platform to develop proprietary adoptive cell therapies potentially targeting multiple types of solid cancers for which current CAR T cell therapies have shown limited or no effect. Under the terms of the collaboration agreement, Volition will fund a research program and the two parties will share proceeds from commercialization or licensing of any products arising from the collaboration. Epigenetically modified nucleosomes are present on tumor cell surfaces and within the tumor microenvironment of multiple types of solid cancers, and thus these nucleosomes may represent generalizable tumor antigens that are not limited to a single cancer type. Volition’s Nu.Q® technology can specifically recognize and target epigenetically modified nucleosomes, while our DNase-Armored CAR T platform is designed to enhance the function of CAR T cells within solid tumor microenvironments. Additionally, we have partnered with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to develop our proprietary drug delivery platform, PolyXen, and receive royalty payments under an exclusive license arrangement in the field of blood coagulation disorders. PolyXen is an enabling platform technology for protein and peptide drug delivery. It uses the biological polymer polysialic acid (“PSA”) to prolong the drug's half-life and potentially improve the stability of therapeutic peptides and proteins. Both the site of attachment and the length of the PSA chain can influence the properties of the therapeutic by changing the apparent hydrodynamic radius of the molecule, which in turn, can enhance a number of the biological characteristics of the therapeutic. It can also be used for small molecule drugs. 2 We incorporate our patented and proprietary technologies into drug candidates currently under development with biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry collaborators to create what we believe will be the next-generation biologic drugs with improved pharmacological properties over existing therapeutics. Our drug candidates have resulted from our research activities or that of our collaborators and are in the development stage. As a result, we continue to commit a significant amount of our resources to our research and development activities and anticipate continuing to do so for the near future. To date, none of our drug candidates have received regulatory marketing authorization or approval in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) nor in any other countries or territories by any applicable agencies. As noted above, we are receiving ongoing royalties pursuant to a license of our PolyXen technology to an industry partner. Although we hold a broad patent portfolio, the focus of our internal efforts in 2023 was on the licensing and advancement of our DNase platform. We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada in August 2011. We, directly or indirectly, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hesperix S.A. (“Hesperix”) and Xenetic Biosciences (U.K.) Limited (“Xenetic U.K.”), and the wholly-owned subsidiaries of Xenetic UK, Lipoxen Technologies Limited (“Lipoxen”), Xenetic Bioscience, Incorporated and SymbioTec, GmbH (“SymbioTec”), own various U.S. federal trademark registrations and applications, along with unregistered trademarks and service marks, including but not limited to XCART, OncoHist, PolyXen, ErepoXen and ImuXen. Our Strategy Our primary focus is aimed at advancing the systemic DNase program into the clinic as an adjunctive therapy for pancreatic cancer and other locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, including CRC. Our goal is to provide solutions in the treatment of solid tumors by improving response and overcoming resistance to checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, and other standard of care treatments. We also intend to pursue industry collaborations and potential licenses to develop DNase for other uses and indications. We intend to pursue orphan drug designations and accelerated approval pathways for relevant oncology indications as appropriate in both the U.S. and Europe. If our orphan oncology drug candidates are granted orphan drug designation, then we may benefit from certain key advantages of orphan status including certain market exclusivities. We intend to advance development of our DNase platform primarily through the use of contract manufacturing, contract research organizations (“CROs”) and academic institutions in order to efficiently manage our resources. Continuous pipeline growth and advancement of out-licensed drug candidates is dependent, in part, on our ability to raise sufficient capital and to advance our existing co-development collaborations and strategic arrangements as well as enter into new such arrangements. Business Developments Volition Collaboration On August 2, 2022, we announced a research and development collaboration with Volition to develop NETs-targeted adoptive cell therapies for the treatment of cancer. The collaboration is an early exploratory program to evaluate the potential combination of Volition’s Nu.Q ® technology Test and the Company’s DNase-Armored CAR T platform to develop proprietary adoptive cell therapies potentially targeting multiple types of solid cancers. Under the terms of the collaboration agreement, Volition will fund a research program and the two parties will share proceeds from commercialization or licensing of any products arising from the collaboration. On July 10, 2023, we entered into the first Collaborator Statement of Work as part of this collaboration with Volition. 3 Scripps Research Institute (“Scripps Research”) On March 17, 2023, the Company and Scripps Research, entered into a Research Funding and Option Agreement (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which we agreed to provide Scripps Research an aggregate of up to $938,000 to fund research relating to advancing the pre-clinical development of our DNase oncology platform technology. The research funding is payable by us to Scripps Research on a monthly basis in accordance with a negotiated budget, which provides for an initial payment of approximately $78,000 on the date of the Agreement and subsequent monthly payments of approximately $78,000 over a 12-month period. Under the Agreement, we have the option to acquire a worldwide exclusive license to Scripps Research’s rights in the Technology or Patent Rights (as defined in the Agreement), as well as a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferrable license to make and use TSRI Technology (as defined in the Agreement) solely for our internal research purposes during the performance of the research program contemplated by the Agreement. Unless earlier terminated, the term of the Agreement continues from the date of the Agreement for fifteen (15) months. The Agreement may be terminated by us with 30 days advance written notice to Scripps Research beginning six (6) months after the Effective Date (as defined in the Agreement) or by Scripps Research if we fail to make timely payments due under the Agreement, subject to 30 days’ written notice to cure such nonpayment. The Agreement may further be terminated by either party in the event of the other party’s uncured failure to perform any obligations under the Agreement or the bankruptcy of the other party. University of Virginia (“UVA”) On December 21, 2023, we entered into a Research Funding and Material Transfer Agreement, as amended, with UVA (the “UVA Agreement”) to advance the development of our systemic DNase program. Under the terms of the UVA Agreement, i n addition to advancing our existing intellectual property, we have an option to acquire an exclusive license to any new intellectual property arising from the DNase research program. Allan Tsung, MD, a member of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board and Chair of the Department of Surgery at the UVA School of Medicine, will oversee the research conducted under the UVA Agreement. As a surgical oncologist and scientist, Dr. Tsung is internationally recognized for leading substantial research on the role of NETs in tumor growth, metastasis, and resistance to existing cancer therapies. Our Technology and Drug Candidates The Technologies We incorporate our patented and proprietary technologies into a number of drug candidates which are currently under development internally or with our biotechnology and pharmaceutical collaborators, with the goal of creating what we believe will be the next generation of biologic drugs and therapeutics. While we primarily focus on researching and developing oncology drugs, we also have ownership and other economic interests in drugs being developed by our collaborators to treat other conditions. During the year ended December 31, 2023, the focus of our internal development efforts was on the advancement of our DNase oncology platform. We have not been actively pursuing development efforts for XCART or PolyXen or any of our other technologies. DNase The DNase platform is designed to target NETs, which are weblike structures composed of extracellular chromatin coated with histones and other proteins. NETs are expelled by activated neutrophils, in response to microbial or pro-inflammatory challenges. However, excessive production or reduced clearance of NETs can lead to aggravated inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies, as well as creation of pro-tumorigenic niches in the case of cancer growth and metastasis. Program Highlights: · Exclusive license and sublicense agreements with CLS Therapeutics Ltd. (“CLS”) to develop its interventional DNase platform, which is aimed at improving outcomes of existing treatments, including immunotherapies; · Multiple value-driving milestones expected over the next 12 -24 months; · Systemic DNase program initially targeting multi-billion-dollar indications including pancreatic carcinoma and other locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors; and · DNase-armored CAR T program in early pre-clinical development. 4 XCART The Chimeric Antigen Receptor (“CAR”) T cell (“XCART”) technology platform was designed by its originators to utilize an established screening technique to identify peptide ligands that bind specifically to the unique BCR on the surface of an individual patient’s malignant tumor cells. The peptide is then inserted into the antigen-binding domain of a CAR T cell, and a subsequent transduction/transfection process is used to engineer the patient’s T cells into a CAR T format which redirects the patient’s T cells to attack the tumor. Essentially, the XCART screening platform is the inverse of a typical CAR T screening protocol wherein libraries of highly specific antibody domains are screened against a given target. In the case of XCART screening, the target is itself an antibody domain, and hence highly specific by its nature. The XCART technology creates the possibility of personalized treatment of lymphomas utilizing a CAR with an antigen-binding domain that should only recognize, and only be recognized by, the unique BCR of a particular patient’s B-cell lymphoma. An expected result for XCART is limited off-tumor toxicities, such as B-cell aplasia. We have suspended further development of XCART at this time, as we focus our efforts and resources on our DNase technology platform. PolyXen An enabling biological platform technology designed to extend the circulation time of drug molecules in the human body by chemically attaching PSA, to the drug molecule by a process termed polysialylation, thereby creating potentially superior next generation therapeutic candidates. PSA, a biopolymer, comprising a chain of sialic acid molecules, is a natural constituent of the human body, although we obtain our PSA from a bacterial source. Research, Outside Services and Collaborations Through partner efforts, we are developing our pipeline of next-generation bio-therapeutics and novel oncology drugs based on our DNase and PolyXen proprietary technologies. In order to do this while efficiently managing our overhead, we rely on the services of contract manufacturers, CROs and our strategic collaborations. We currently do not have in-house research facilities to pursue these initiatives. Accordingly, continuous pipeline growth and advancement of our technologies and drug candidates is dependent on several important collaborations and strategic arrangements, including our arrangements with: · Catalent Pharma Solutions LLC (“Catalent”), a global leader in enabling biopharma, cell, gene and consumer health partners to optimize development, launch, and supply of better patient treatments across multiple modalities; · PJSC Pharmsynthez (“Pharmsynthez”), including its wholly-owned subsidiary SynBio LLC (“SynBio”), a beneficial owner of approximately 3.4% of our common stock; · Scripps Research, one of the world’s largest, private non-profit research organizations; and · The University of Virginia, a non-profit, educational, research and healthcare institution. Accordingly, in addition to pursuing our development of the DNase technology, we also have significant interests in drug candidates being developed by our collaborators to treat other conditions. We may collect some combination of milestone payments and royalties pursuant to these collaborations to the extent that these drugs are successfully developed and marketed. However, other than royalty payments under a sublicense with Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, “Takeda”) and potential royalty payments under our collaboration agreement with Pharmsynthez, we do not anticipate any milestone or royalty payments in the near term, if at all. For further detail, please read the section titled “Significant Collaborations and Strategic Arrangements” below. 5 Our Drug Candidate Pipeline Our product pipeline contains drug candidates under development internally and with our biotechnology and pharmaceutical collaborators. The following table summarizes key information regarding our current drug candidates: ErepoXen ErepoXen, or polysialylated erythropoietin (“PSA-EPO”), uses our PolyXen platform technology for the treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) patients. It is designed to reduce the dosing frequency by extending the circulating half-life of the therapeutic in the body. We are not pursuing clinical development of ErepoXen but continue to entertain out-license opportunities for the drug candidate in our licensed territories. We have collaboration agreements with Pharmsynthez and Serum Institute to develop and launch ErepoXen in limited markets pursuant to which we will collect royalties if they are successful in these efforts. Pharmsynthez received regulatory approval to commence a Phase II(b)/III human clinical trial of ErepoXen (also known as Epolong) in Russia with patient recruitment completed in 2020. In December 2020, Pharmsynthez reported positive data from this clinical trial and, in February 2021, reported in a press release that it had started the registration phase of Epolong by filing a registration dossier to obtain approval in Russia. Pharmsynthez had reported in its press release that it expected that the Russian stage of registration activities would be completed in 2021 and that it would be able to start production of the product as early as the first quarter of 2022. In the first quarter of 2023, Pharmsynthez informed us that it had received a response letter indicating certain deficiencies in the dossier and continues to develop a gap mitigation strategy with the intent of refiling the registration upon correction. 6 Serum Institute conducted Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of ErepoXen in ninety-five human subjects. These safety trials, which had no significant drug-related adverse events, provided us with the data to commence a Phase II, repeat dosing, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use compliant clinical trial for ErepoXen in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa for CKD patients not on dialysis. We completed three cohorts of this study and then terminated the study. In addition, Serum Institute finished Phase I/II clinical trials in India of ErepoXen for in-center-dialysis patients. Serum Institute may seek to leverage Pharmsynthez’s trial data and potential Russian marketing authorization to request a waiver for a Phase III clinical trial in India, subject to local regulatory authority approval. Pipeline Expansion Opportunities Operating under licenses from us within their home markets, our collaborators can potentially generate preclinical and clinical data related to our technologies across a wide spectrum of therapeutic areas. Under these agreements, we retain all rights for major markets and co-own the clinical data. We therefore have the opportunity to utilize the data in our decision-making process regarding development and commercialization in major markets. Significant Collaborations and Strategic Arrangements Takeda In October 2017, we granted to Takeda the right to grant a non-exclusive sublicense to certain patents related to our PolyXen technology that were previously exclusively licensed to Takeda in connection with products related to the treatment of blood and bleeding disorders. Royalty payments of approximately $2.5 million and $1.7 million were recorded as revenue by us during the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, and are based on single digit royalties on net sales of certain covered products. CLS On April 26, 2022, we entered into an Exclusive Sublicense Agreement (the “Sublicense Agreement”) with CLS pursuant to which we received an exclusive license under certain patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by CLS, to develop and commercialize certain pharmaceutical products and methods incorporating DNase enzyme for use in the treatment of cancer (the “Sublicensed Products”). Under the terms of the Sublicense Agreement, we will have sole responsibility to, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to, among other things, research, develop and obtain marketing approval for the Sublicensed Products in the U.S. and certain European markets, and to commercialize such Sublicensed Products in the relevant market once marketing approval is obtained. Concurrent with the Sublicense Agreement, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with CLS, pursuant to which we received an exclusive license under certain patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by CLS to develop and commercialize certain pharmaceutical products and methods incorporating DNase in conjunction with CAR T therapies (the “Licensed Products”). Under the terms of the License Agreement, we will have sole responsibility to, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to, among other things, research, develop and obtain marketing approval for the Licensed Products in the U.S. and certain European markets, and to commercialize such Licensed Products in the relevant market once marketing approval is obtained. Volition On August 2, 2022, we announced a research and development collaboration with Volition to develop NETs-targeted adoptive cell therapies for the treatment of cancer and on July 10, 2023 we entered into the first Collaborator Statement of Work with Volition as part of this collaboration. For more information regarding such collaboration with Volition, refer to the section titled “Business Developments” above. 7 Catalent On June 30, 2022, we entered into a Statement of Work (the “SOW”) with Catalent to outline the general scope of work, timeline, and pricing pursuant to which Catalent will provide certain services to us to perform current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) manufacturing of our recombinant protein, Human DNase I. The parties agreed to enter into a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) that will contain terms and conditions to govern the project contemplated by the SOW and that will supersede the addendum to the SOW containing Catalent’s standard terms and conditions. In addition, in the event of any conflict between the project-specific terms and conditions set forth in the SOW and the MSA, the MSA terms and conditions shall govern. The estimated total cost of the project contemplated by the SOW is expected to be up to approximately $5 million (exclusive of certain fees and potential alternatives) for the manufacturing services over the course of the term of the project with each phase of the project invoiced separately in connection with the commencement of such phase. Scripps Research On March 17, 2023, the Company and Scripps Research entered into the Agreement, pursuant to which we have agreed to provide Scripps Research an aggregate of up to $938,000 to fund research relating to advancing the pre-clinical development of our DNase oncology platform technology. For more information regarding the Agreement, refer to the section titled “Business Developments” above. Other Agreements We have also entered into various research, development, license and supply agreements with Serum Institute of India (“Serum Institute”), Pharmsynthez and SynBio, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pharmsynthez. We and our collaborative partners continued to engage in research and development activities with no resultant commercial products through December 31, 2023. No amounts were recognized as revenue related to the Serum Institute, Pharmsynthez or SynBio agreements during each of the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022. Our Intellectual Property We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from our collaborators or other third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. covering our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates, continuing innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of oncology. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term and supplemental patent certificate extensions when available. Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions and improvements; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; to obtain and maintain licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including any patents that we may own in the future; and to operate without infringing on the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Our drug candidates are in various stages of development, each protected by patent and pending patent applications in the U.S. with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and in certain other developed countries. Our first issued patents began to expire in 2021 with the majority of the existing issued patents for our PolyXen technology expiring between 2025 and 2030. Our XCART and XDNASE patent families include patent applications that were recently filed, with those most recently filed having an expiration date of 2042. 8 Our patent strategy is to file patent applications on innovations and improvements in those jurisdictions that comprise the major pharmaceutical markets in the world or locations where a pharmaceutical may be manufactured. These jurisdictions generally include for our key patent portfolios, but are not limited to, the U.S., U.K., Australia, Japan, Canada, South Korea, China, India, Russia and certain other countries in the European Union (“E.U.”), though we do not necessarily file a patent application in each of these jurisdictions for every patent family. As of February 15, 2024, we directly or indirectly own (e.g. through a license with CLS), through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Hesperix and Xenetic U.K., and Xenetic U.K.’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, Lipoxen, XTI and SymbioTec, more than 170 U.S. and international patents and pending patent applications that cover various aspects of our technologies. This number includes patents and patent applications that we have acquired or filed covering various aspects of our XDNASE and XCART platform technology, including all rights throughout the world in and to patents and patent applications related to “Articles And Methods Directed To Personalized Therapy Of Cancer,” and our PolyXen platform technology covering polysialylation and advanced polymer conjugate technologies, respectively, as well as our other product candidates. More specifically, our patents and patent applications cover cancer treatments, method of use, polymer architecture, drug conjugates, formulations, methods of manufacturing polymers and polymer conjugates along with methods of administering polymer conjugates. We have received patent protection for certain therapeutics that use our PolyXen technology linking the specific therapeutic to a PSA. These include, but are not limited to, PSA-EPO, PSA-insulin and PSA-insulin like protein, a next generation Factor VIII protein product candidate SHP656 (PSA-rFVIII), PSA-DNase I and PSA-granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PSA-GCSF). Further patents cover methods to prepare proteins that are linked to a PSA as well as covering PSA linkages. These method patents include those that link a PSA to a protein in a high pH solution as well as patents that use a process for producing an aldehyde derivative of a sialic acid through the opening and oxidation of a sialic acid unit. For instance, we have patent protection for a PSA linkage that can be at the N-terminus. We have received patent protection for the production of PSA and the removal of endotoxin during the purification process. The removal of endotoxin occurs through the addition of a high pH solution to the PSA and a process to separate a polydisperse ionically charged polysaccharide, such as PSA, into fractions of different average molecular weight. This is accomplished through the use of a column and elution buffers with different and constant ionic strength and pH, resulting in a fractionated polysaccharide that has a molecular weight polydispersity of 1.1 or lower. We have also received patent protection for our XDNASE technology, which covers the use of DNase for the treatment of cancer and amelioration of the side effects associated with a cancer treatment. The DNase can be administered alone or in combination with a cancer therapeutic. This portfolio and that of the XCART portfolio also provide coverage for the use of certain types of CAR-T cells, with or without the addition of a DNase to treat a cancer. The portfolio further covers the use of CAR-T cells with or without DNase that are administered with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or modulator to treat a cancer. Issued patents can provide protection for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In general, patents issued for applications filed in the U.S. can provide exclusionary rights for twenty years from the earliest effective filing date. In addition, in certain instances, the term of an issued U.S. patent that covers or claims an FDA approved product can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, which is called patent term extension in the United States and supplemental patent certificate in Europe and several other countries. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years, and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed fourteen years following FDA approval. The term of patents outside of the U.S. varies in accordance with the laws of the foreign jurisdiction but is typically also twenty years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. 9 In certain situations, where we work with drugs covered by one or more patents, our ability to develop and commercialize our technologies may be affected by limitations of our access to these proprietary drugs. Even if we believe we are free to work with a proprietary drug, we cannot guarantee that we will not be accused of, or be determined to be, infringing on a third party’s rights and be prohibited from working with the drug or found liable for damages. Any such restriction on access or liability for damages would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, such as ours, are uncertain and involve complex legal and factual issues. There can be no assurance that patents that have been issued will be held valid and enforceable in a court of law. Even for patents that are held valid and enforceable, the legal process associated with obtaining such a judgment is time consuming and costly. Additionally, issued patents can be subject to opposition or other proceedings that can result in the revocation of the patent or maintenance of the patent in amended form (and potentially in a form that renders the patent without commercially relevant and/or broad coverage). Further, our competitors may be able to circumvent and otherwise design around our patents. Even if a patent is issued and enforceable, because development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products can be subject to substantial delays, patents may expire early and provide only a short period of protection, if any, following the commercialization of products encompassed by our patent(s). We may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO, which could result in a loss of the patent and/or substantial cost to us. Further, we understand that if any of our pending patent applications do not issue, or are deemed invalid following issuance, we may lose valuable IP protection. U.S. and foreign patent rights and other proprietary rights exist that are owned by third parties and relate to pharmaceutical compositions and reagents, medical devices and equipment and methods for preparation, packaging and delivery of pharmaceutical compositions. We cannot predict with any certainty which, if any, of these rights will be considered relevant to our technology by authorities in the various jurisdictions where such rights exist, nor can we predict with certainty which, if any, of these rights will or may be asserted against us by third parties. We could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves and our partners against any such claims. Furthermore, parties making such claims may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to develop or commercialize some or all of our products in the U.S. and in other countries and could result in the award of substantial damages. In the event of a claim of infringement, we or our partners may be required to obtain one or more licenses from third parties. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a license to any technology that we determine we require on reasonable terms, if at all, or that we could develop or otherwise obtain alternative technology. The failure to obtain licenses, if required, may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, we may not be able to obtain IP licenses related to the development of our drug candidates on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all. It is our policy to require our employees and consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors who receive confidential information from us to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. The agreements provide that all inventions conceived by an employee shall be our property. There can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection or adequate remedies for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of such information. Manufacturing and Supply We do not have the capability to manufacture our own materials necessary to support our drug candidate development programs nor do we intend to acquire such capability as part of our present business strategy. We currently have agreements in place with Catalent and Serum Institute whereby Catalent and Serum Institute would produce clinical materials for use in the development of drug candidates involving our DNase and PolyXen technologies, respectively, including candidates developed by our partners. We do not have any agreements in place to manufacture clinical materials for use in the development of our XCART technology and would seek a third party manufacturer for our clinical supply needs, if necessary. 10 Government Regulation General Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level, and other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. Generally, a new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process and a new biologic must be licensed by the FDA through the biologics license application (“BLA”) process before it may be legally marketed in the U.S. U.S. Regulation Drug Development Process In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and in the case of biologics, also under the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and their implementing 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 U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license revocation, a clinical hold, warning letters or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement 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 drug or biologic may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following: · completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) regulations and 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 in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; · submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA; · satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and · FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA. The drug or biologic manufacturer may also be subject to post-approval regulatory requirements. Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the first phase of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective thirty days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the thirty-day time period, places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds may also be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns about ongoing or proposed clinical trials or noncompliance with specific FDA requirements, and the trials may not begin or continue until the FDA notifies the sponsor that the hold has been lifted. 11 All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP regulations. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and timely safety reports must be submitted to the FDA if any serious and unexpected adverse events occur. An institutional review board (“IRB”) at each institution participating in the clinical trial (or in some cases an independent IRB) must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution. As part of its review, the IRB must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the study until completion and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: · Phase I : The drug candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. · Phase II : This phase involves clinical trials 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 and appropriate dosage. · Phase III : Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the drug candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for product labeling. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA by the Sponsor, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in-vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. 12 U.S. Market Approval Process The results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information will be submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA or BLA is subject to the payment of user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA reviews all NDAs and BLAs submitted to ensure they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the NDA or 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. The FDA may refer the NDA or BLA to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase III trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct Phase IV testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA or BLA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products which have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for noncompliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing. Orphan Drug Act The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs or biologics for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the U.S. at the time of application for orphan drug designation or for a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or biologic will be recovered from sales in the U.S. The first developer to receive FDA marketing approval for an orphan drug is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product. However, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the U.S. during the seven-year exclusive marketing period. In addition, holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs are expected to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the drug. 13 Pediatric Information Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2007 (“PREA”), NDAs or BLAs or supplements to NDAs or BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indication(s) in all relevant pediatric sub-populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric sub-population for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan drug designation has been granted. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides sponsors of NDAs with an additional six-month period of market exclusivity for all unexpired patent or non-patent exclusivity on all forms of the drug containing the active moiety if the sponsor submits results of pediatric studies specifically requested by the FDA under BPCA within required timeframes. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act provides sponsors of BLAs an additional six-month extension for all unexpired non-patent market exclusivity on all forms of the biologic containing the active moiety pursuant to the BPCA if the conditions under the BPCA are met. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”), which was signed into law on July 9, 2012, amended the FDCA. FDASIA requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within sixty days of an end-of-Phase II meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. For a Fast Track designated product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. If the FDA concludes that a drug shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it will require such post-marketing restrictions as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the drug, such as (i) distribution restricted to certain facilities or physicians with special training or experience or (ii) distribution conditioned on the performance of specified medical procedures. 14 FDASIA established a new category of drugs and biologics referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive Breakthrough Therapy Designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a drug or biologic candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The Breakthrough Therapy Designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will expedite the development and review of such drug. All requests for breakthrough therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, and the FDA will either grant or deny the request. The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in 2016, established a new expedited approval program for regenerative medicine products, including cell and gene therapies. The Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) program established an expedited review program to facilitate development and review of regenerative medicine therapies intended to address an unmet medical need in patients with serious conditions. An investigational drug is eligible for RMAT designation if: (1) It meets the definition of regenerative medicine therapy (such as a cell therapy or gene therapy); (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the regenerative medicine therapy has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such condition. Advantages of the RMAT designation include all the benefits of the fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs, including early interactions with FDA. Post-Approval Requirements Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements or standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, certain manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug and biologics manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs and biologics 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 regulations and other laws and regulations. U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, amended the Public Health Service Act to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. The BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications based on the Company’s data for twelve years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. This twelve-year period of data exclusivity may be extended by six months, for a total of twelve and a half years, if the FDA requests that the innovator company conduct pediatric clinical investigations of the product. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of fourteen years from the product’s approval date. The patent term extension period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application up to a maximum of five years extension. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for extension of the patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date where reasonably obtainable and depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA. 15 Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application (e.g., new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug). This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. under the BPCA. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children as addressed in the section named “Pediatric Information” above. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Foreign Regulation In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for our drug candidates, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the drug candidates in those countries. Certain countries outside of the U.S. have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application (“CTA”) much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the European Union, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and the IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical study development may proceed. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product approval and licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the NDA or BLA in the U.S. is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. The European Union also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, in the European Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. 16 The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the U.S. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. In addition, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if: · the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; · the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or · the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal products. For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing or approval, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Other Regulatory Matters Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also potentially subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the U.S., the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments. In the U.S., sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must also comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws, including state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, data privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the federal health care program (e.g. Medicaid) rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the Affordable Care Act, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. 17 The failure to comply with regulatory requirements may subject us to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. Reimbursement In both domestic and foreign markets, sales and reimbursement of any approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of such products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. For example, in the U.S. there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Additionally, in May 2018, the Trump Administration laid out a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. While the Biden Administration has not continued this effort, it has the authority to institute other actions. In December of 2020, the Trump Administration issued interim final rules focused on attempting to lower drug prices, including permitting the importation of certain drugs from Canada, most-favored nation pricing for certain drug categories under Medicare Part B and modifications to the Medicare Part D drug rebate program by modifying the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The Part B most-favored nation rule was blocked from taking effect on January 4, 2021, by a federal judge stating that the rule was rushed and the public was not provided time to give comment as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Then, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule that formally rescinded the most-favored nation rule. There is also pending litigation to stay the changes to the Medicare Part D drug rebate program and the Anti-Kickback Statute. On January 30, 2021, the District Court for the District of Columbia granted the parties’ stipulated request to delay the effective date of the Part D rebate rule to January 1, 2023. On August 7, 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which delayed the implementation of the changes to the Medicare Part D drug rebate program and the U.S. Federal Anti-Kickback Statute until January 2032. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may impact existing Medicare programs that cover prescription drugs. In addition to other relevant provisions, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 allow the Medicare program to directly negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure prescription drugs covered under Medicare Parts B and D, starting in the year 2028 and 2026, respectively, by setting certain "maximum fair prices." Moreover, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 requires manufacturers to pay rebates to the federal government if prices of certain drugs covered under the Medicare program rise faster than the rate of inflation. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed 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, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. 18 Within the U.S., if we obtain appropriate approval in the future to market any of our product candidates, we may seek approval and coverage for those products under Medicaid, Medicare and the Public Health Service, or PHS, pharmaceutical pricing program and may also seek to sell the products to federal agencies. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that is administered by the states for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers are required to pay a rebate for each unit of product reimbursed by the state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is set by law and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation. Medicare is a federal program administered by the federal government that covers individuals age 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. Medicare Part D provides coverage to enrolled Medicare patients for self-administered drugs (i.e., drugs that do not need to be administered by a physician). Medicare Part D is administered by private prescription drug plans approved by the U.S. government, and each drug plan and/or pharmacy benefit manager establishes its own Medicare Part D formulary for prescription drug coverage and pricing, which the drug plan and/or pharmacy benefit manager may modify from time-to-time. Medicare Part B covers most injectable drugs given in an in-patient setting and some drugs administered by a licensed medical provider in hospital outpatient departments and doctors’ offices. Medicare Part B is administered by Medicare Administrative Contractors, which generally have the responsibility of making coverage decisions. Subject to certain payment adjustments and limits, Medicare generally pays for Part B covered drugs based on a percentage of manufacturer-reported average sales price. Drug products are subject to discounted pricing when purchased by federal agencies via the Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS. FSS participation is required for a drug product to be covered and paid for by certain federal agencies and for coverage under Medicaid, Medicare Part B and the PHS pharmaceutical pricing program. FSS pricing is negotiated periodically with the Department of Veterans Affairs. FSS pricing is intended to not exceed the price that a manufacturer charges its most-favored non-federal customer for its product. In addition, prices for drugs purchased by the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense (including drugs purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program), Coast Guard and PHS are subject to a cap on pricing (known as the “federal ceiling price”) and may be subject to an additional discount if pricing increases more than inflation. To maintain coverage of drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers are required to extend discounts to certain purchasers under the PHS pharmaceutical pricing program. Purchasers eligible for discounts include hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of financially-needy patients, community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the PHS. In March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Affordable Care Act, which included changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to numerous elements of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, the former President Trump signed Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In addition, the U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain mandated fees and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. In December 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act. Although the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing in June of 2021, any other executive, legislative or judicial action to “repeal and replace” all or part of the Affordable Care Act may have the effect of limiting the amounts that government agencies will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure, or may lead to significant deregulation, which could make the introduction of competing products and technologies much easier. Regardless of the future of the Affordable Care Act provisions, the Congress will continue to debate a range of policies that could impact the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for products or how much they are reimbursed. 19 Environmental Regulation In addition to being subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, we must also comply with environmental regulation insofar as such regulation applies to us or our drug candidates. Our costs of compliance with environmental regulation as applied to similar pharmaceutical companies are minimal, since we do not currently, nor do we intend to, engage in the manufacturing of any of our drug candidates. We currently use unaffiliated manufacturers to produce all of our drug candidate material and receive final material from such manufacturer, without any involvement on our part in the manufacturing process at any stage of the process. Although we believe that our safety procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of our drug candidate materials comply with the environmental standards required by state and federal laws and regulations, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. We do not carry a specific insurance policy to mitigate this risk to us or to the environment. Employees At December 31, 2023, we employed four full-time employees. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement with our employees, nor are any of our employees a member of any labor unions. To complement our own professional staff, we utilize specialists in regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance, process engineering, manufacturing, quality assurance, preclinical and clinical development, accounting and business development. These individuals include scientific advisors as well as independent consultants. Competition The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, side effects, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are many generic products currently on the market for the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our therapeutic product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. 20 The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted drug therapy. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. To the extent our product candidates are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to existing drug or other therapies, our product candidates will not be competitive with them. Some of the currently approved drug therapies are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. In general, although there has been considerable progress over the past few decades in the treatment of cancer and the currently marketed therapies provide benefits to many patients, these therapies all are limited to some extent in their efficacy and frequency of adverse events, and none of them are successful in treating all patients. As a result, the level of morbidity and mortality from cancer remains high. DNase for pancreatic cancer and solid tumors In the field of pancreatic cancer, we will compete with the few, currently approved treatments for pancreatic carcinoma, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDAC”). In the first line setting, Gemcitabine in combination with Abraxane ® or FOLFIRINOX regimen are the current standard of care, although NALIRIFOX, which substitutes liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde) for irinotecan, recently received FDA approval for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncologists have limited options of existing therapies for second-line metastatic patients. The only FDA-approved second-line treatment is Onivyde ® in combination with Fluorouracil (5FU) and leucovorin (LV) for gemcitabine-treated patients. In addition to chemotherapy, Merck’s KEYTRUDA ® was approved for MSI-H cancers (approximately 1% of all cases) and Lynparza ® was approved for maintenance of BRCA (or “BReast CAncer gene”) mutated pancreatic cancer (approximately 7% of all cases). In the last years there have been a number of late-stage clinical failures of compounds for advanced PDAC. Most of these failed trials have been based on a single promising endpoint. There are very few compounds in advanced stages of development in PDAC. With respect to other solid tumors, there are a large number of companies developing treatments intended to be used in combination with approved immunotherapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, to treat a variety of solid tumor indications. In the field of CRC, there are numerous approved treatments for CRC diagnosed at earlier stages. However, for mCRC, chemotherapy remains the mainstay of systemic treatment for MSS/MMRp mCRC, which at 95%, represent the majority of mCRC patients. Chemotherapy regimens will typically consist of a fluoropyrimidine (5-FU or capecitabine) paired in a two-drug regimen (doublet) with irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Treatment regimens can be 5-FU- or capecitabine-based and can be either oxaliplatin-based (FOLFOX or CAPEOX) or irinotecan- based (FOLFIRI or CAPIRI) with no difference in survival. Regimens with a three-drug (triplet) combination, FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOXIRI, are also available as first-line therapy and are commonly paired with the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab. Second-line therapy is tailored according to previous therapies. In general, patients who receive oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy upfront should be treated with irinotecan-based chemotherapy and vice versa [20–22]. Biologics such as aflibercept ramucirumab are added based on molecular profiling. After progression on second-line therapy, patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type disease receive an EGFR inhibitor combined with irinotecan. Alternatively, if they have HER2 mutation, trastuzumab is typically preferred. Patients with the BRAF V600E mutation typically receive an encorafenib-cetuximab regimen. For those 5% of patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are now the preferred first line therapy. However, 50% of those will fail and the therapeutic options then become very limited. Immunotherapy is so far largely considered ineffective in MSS/MMRp mCRC. We will compete with novel combinations of ICIs with conventional cancer drugs or immunotherapeutics that have started to expose vulnerabilities in MSS/MMRp mCRC. These include dual immune checkpoint inhibition of both the PD-1/L1 axis and CTLA-4. Other combinations being explored include immunotherapies combined with anti-EGFR antibodies, small molecule VEGFR inhibitors, small molecule inhibitors against other targets (for example, KRAS), and novel ICIs targeting lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3). These combination have shown modest benefit and with the exception of LAG3, do not directly address the main reasons for ICI failure, which are lower mutation and neoantigen loads in MSS/MMRp mCRC compared to MSI-H/MMRd mCRC, and immunosuppression. 21 PSA for Drug Delivery Current competing platforms include PEGylation, Fc-fusion, albumin-fusion, HESylation, PASylation, and CTP-fusion, among others as well as those of academic institutions and other smaller pharmaceutical companies engaged in drug development. In addition to competing with universities and other research institutions in the development of drug products, therapies, technologies and processes, we may compete with other companies in acquiring rights to products or technologies from universities. Available Information Our website address is www.xeneticbio.com. The information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports are available, free of charge, on or through our website as soon as practicable after we electronically file such forms, or furnish them to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov. In addition to disclosing current information pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and for reports of information required to be disclosed by Regulation FD through our SEC filings, we also intend to disclose such current information through our investor relations website, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts. 22