UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

Commission File Number: 001-41934

FibroBiologics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(281) 651-5150

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

(Common Stock, $0.00001 par value)

Indicate  by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their obligations under those Sections.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting fi rm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recover analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The registrant completed the direct listing of its common stock and its shares commenced trading on Nasdaq on January 31, 2024. There was no public market for the registrant’s common stock as of June 30, 2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, therefore the registrant cannot calculate the aggregate market value of its voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates at such date.

At February 20, 2024, 32,634,366 shares of FibroBiologics, Inc.’s Common Stock, $0.00001 par value per share, and 2,500 shares of FibroBiologics, Inc’s Series C Preferred Stock, $0.00001 par value per share, were outstanding.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, and the documents incorporated by reference herein, if any, contain forward-looking statements that can involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, future revenue, timing and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations, future results of anticipated products and prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will,” or “would” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements contained in this annual report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about our business, the industry in which we operate and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance or development. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this annual report and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein until after we distribute this Annual Report, whether as a result of any new information, future events or otherwise.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this annual report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and you are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, all references to the “Company,” “FibroBiologics,” “we,” “us,” “our” and the “registrant” refer to FibroBiologics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage cell therapy company focused on developing and commercializing fibroblast-based therapies for patients suffering from chronic diseases with significant unmet medical needs, including degenerative disc disease, multiple sclerosis, wound healing, and certain cancers, and potential extension of life applications including thymic and splenic involution reversal.

We were formed in April 2021 as a Texas limited liability company under the name FibroBiologics, LLC, and converted to a Delaware corporation in December 2021 under the name Fibrobiologics, Inc. On April 14, 2023, we changed our name to FibroBiologics, Inc. In connection with our formation, we issued shares of our Series A Preferred Stock, or the Series A Preferred Stock, to our then parent, FibroGenesis, in return for rights to certain intellectual property through a patent assignment agreement and an intellectual property cross-licensing agreement. Developing the intellectual property obtained from FibroGenesis was the basis for our formation. Prior to our inception, preclinical research and development related to the aforementioned disease pathways took place under FibroGenesis.

Fibroblasts Technology Platform

Fibroblasts and stem cells are the only two cell types in the human body that can regenerate tissue and organs. Studies have indicated that mesenchymal stem cells and fibroblasts share many surface markers in common, and can differentiate into many cells including adipocytes, chondrocytes, osteoblasts, hepatocytes, and cardiomyocytes, and can regulate the immune system. However, transcriptomic and epigenetic studies have indicated a clear difference between the two cell types.

Fibroblasts comprise the main cell type of connective tissue, possessing a spindle-shaped morphology, whose classical function has historically been believed to produce an extracellular matrix responsible for maintaining the structural integrity of the tissue. Fibroblasts also play an important role in the proliferative phase of wound healing, resulting in the deposition of the extracellular matrix.

Fibroblasts are favorable to stem cells as a cell therapy treatment platform because fibroblasts:

Studies have demonstrated that allogeneic fibroblasts, much like mesenchymal stem cells, are immune-privileged and do not provoke an immune response in vitro and in vivo. These studies include that of Valente and colleagues (PMID 7646145) in which they looked at the aortic valve after heart transplantation and noted that even acute cases of acute myocardial rejection did not appear to compromise the long-term viability and durability of the valve, and the tissue viability was histologically confirmed and showed perfectly preserved fibroblasts¹. In another study by O’Brien and colleagues (PMID 3682851) the researchers illustrated, using chromosomal analysis, long-term viability of the male donor fibroblast cells from a valve leaflet removed nine years after implantation into a female recipient. This illustrated that donor fibroblast cells are able to survive and proliferate in the host with destruction by the immune system². If autologous fibroblasts were required instead, it would mean that cells would have to be harvested from each patient, processed and cultured, and then administered to the same patient, which would be more costly and inefficient. Because allogeneic fibroblasts do not cause an immune response, we are planning to build our own cGMP manufacturing facility to source allogeneic fibroblast cells for clinical testing of our product candidates and for commercial sales if product candidates receive marketing approval.

Our Strategy

We are leveraging fibroblast cells as a technology platform to research and develop innovative treatments for chronic diseases with significant unmet treatment needs. Our vision is to become a world leader in regenerative medicine through a rigorous scientific process and commitment to serving patients’ needs. To achieve our vision, we will focus our efforts on the following strategy:

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $9.2 million. To advance our aforementioned strategy over the next 12 months, in addition to ongoing expenditures for personnel and infrastructure, the following research and development initiatives are expected to be funded with available capital:

We believe our available capital will allow us to develop the master cell bank, and working cell bank for transfer to a CDMO that will ultimately manufacture our drug products required to initiate phase 1/2 clinical trials for CybroCell, CYMS101, and CYWC628.

The above estimates are preliminary and subject to change. We cannot specify with certainty all of the particular uses for our available capital within the next 12 months. Due to uncertainties inherent in the development process, it is difficult to estimate the exact amounts of our available capital that will be used for any particular purpose. In addition, the amount, allocation and timing of our actual expenditures will depend upon numerous factors, including the results of our research and development efforts.

Our People

We have assembled an executive leadership team comprised of our founder, chief executive officer and chairperson of our board of directors, our chief scientific officer, and our chief financial officer, with successful track records in startup entrepreneurial companies and in the life sciences industry. Our executive leadership team works under the oversight of our board of directors who are recognized leaders with hands-on industry experience. We also have a team of world-renowned scientists with relevant expertise on our scientific advisory board to help guide our research and development efforts.

Our Current Pipeline

We have a pipeline of product candidates at various stages of development, including the following:

CybroCell^TM for Degenerative Disc Disease

Degenerative Disc Disease

Back pain is strongly associated with degeneration of the intervertebral disc. Disc degeneration, although in many cases asymptomatic, is also associated with sciatica and disc herniation, pain or prolapse. It alters disc height and the mechanics of the rest of the spinal column, adversely affecting the behavior of other spinal structures such as muscles and ligaments. In the long term, it can lead to spinal stenosis, a major cause of pain and disability in the elderly. Its incidence is rising with current demographic changes and an increased aged population.

The disc acts as a joint between two vertebra and performs the following critical functions:

Discs degenerate far earlier than do other musculoskeletal tissues. The first unequivocal findings of degeneration in the lumbar discs are seen in the age group 11–16 years. About 20% of people in their teens have discs with mild signs of degeneration. The percentage increases sharply with age, particularly in males, so that around 10% of 50-year-old discs and 60% of 70-year-old discs are severely degenerated (Current Epidemiology of Low Back Pain” by Mattiuzzi et al, in 2020).

During growth and skeletal maturation, the boundary between annulus and nucleus becomes less obvious and, with increasing age, the nucleus generally becomes more fibrotic and less gel-like. With increasing age and degeneration, the disc changes in morphology, becoming more and more disorganized. Often, the annular lamellae becomes irregular, bifurcating and interdigitating, and the collagen and elastin networks also appear to become more disorganized.

Cleft formation with fissures frequently forms within the disc, particularly in the nucleus. Nerves and blood vessels are increasingly found with degeneration. Cell proliferation occurs, leading to cluster formation in the nucleus. Cell death also occurs, with the presence of cells with necrotic and apoptotic appearance. It has been reported that more than 50% of cells in adult discs are necrotic. With increasing age comes an increased incidence of degenerative changes, including cell death, cell proliferation, mucous degeneration, granular change and concentric tears. It is difficult to differentiate changes that occur solely due to aging from those that might be considered ‘pathological’.

According to research published in the Global Spine Journal, titled “Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Estimating Global Incidence and Worldwide” by Ravindra et al published in 2018, approximately 266.0 million individuals suffer from degenerative spinal disease and lower back pain each year. In addition, 403.0 million individuals present annually with symptomatic disc degeneration, 103.0 million with spinal stenosis and 39.0 million with spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, lower back pain is considered as one of the chief complaints that may indicate an underlying spine-related disorder. According to the research published in the Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy, titled “Current Epidemiology of Low Back Pain” by Mattiuzzi et al, in 2020, incidence, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years, or DALYs, of lower back pain are 245.9 million cases per year (15th worldwide cause), 577.0 million cases (15th worldwide cause) and 64.9 million (6th worldwide cause), respectively. The paper further stated that the risk of lower back pain is marginally higher in women compared to men. Chronic lower back pain is one of the common complaints that may indicate an underlying serious spinal disorder.

These statistics indicate the significant impact degenerative spine disorders can have on patients’ lives. These indications are associated with a diverse range of clinical symptoms such as weakness, low extremity pain and back pain, and can result in a significant reduction in the quality of life. The treatments used presently are mainly conservative and palliative and are aimed at returning patients to work. They range from bed rest (no longer recommended) to analgesia, the use of muscle relaxants or injection of corticosteroids, or local anesthetic and manipulation therapies. Various interventions (e.g. intradiscal electrotherapy) are also used, but despite anecdotal statements of success, trials thus far have found their use to be of little direct benefit. Disc degeneration-related pain may also be treated surgically either by artificial disc replacement or by immobilization of the affected vertebrae.

Available Treatments for Degenerative Disc Disease

Most patients suffering from degenerative disc disease, at least initially, show improvement with non-surgical interventions such as physical therapy, core strengthening, and stretching. When those interventions no longer provide relief, patients typically use therapeutics, which include conventional drugs such as opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids for pain relief. When these non-surgical therapeutics are no longer effective, patients may undergo surgical treatment, including the use of medical devices or implants, to provide relief.

The original surgical treatment for correcting degenerated disc is either to perform a discectomy or spinal fusion. Discectomy is an appropriate procedure and is routinely performed to remove the degenerated nucleus through a fenestration within the annulus. It allows removal of both the extruded nucleus (herniectomy) and the degenerated remaining inter-vertebral nucleus fragments. Although this procedure is ideal for decompressing and relieving the nervous system (root or cauda equina), it is a poor operation for the spine, due to its resulting disabling condition which leads to a degenerative cascade and may require an additional invasive surgical procedure, like fusion or arthroplasty. Discectomy brings a good short-term effect in relieving radicular pain, but it causes disc height reduction with neuro-foramen stenosis, instability of the treated level, poor result on back pain, and/or complications, such as spinal stenosis or facet pain.

Patients who undergo these procedures are usually on painkillers for weeks and have at least three to six months of recovery time. Therefore, there is a need for a less painful, less invasive and more effective method. The pitfalls of original treatment procedures have led to a search for the development of non-fusion technologies, such as disc or disc nucleus prosthesis. Disc arthroplasty with an artificial disc is an emerging treatment for patients with disc degeneration. Its advantages are to maintain motion, decrease incidence of adjacent segment degeneration, avoid complications related to fusion and allow early return to function. Currently, two kinds of devices are marketed: the total disc replacement and the nuclear replacement. However, both of these devices have major pitfalls.

There has been a growing demand for spinal artificial discs in the market globally. These devices are gaining popularity as they are designed with the intent to provide stabilization and eliminate pain while preserving motion of the functional spinal unit. In July 2021, Aesculap Implant Systems, LLC announced the long-term reporting from its pivotal trial for the activL® Artificial Disc.

Centinel Spine’s prodiscL is a Total Disc Replacement, or TDR, technology platform that offers a surgical alternative to fusion to qualified patients suffering from disc degeneration in the cervical and lumbar spine. ProdiscL implants are intended to relieve pain while allowing the potential for motion at the diseased spinal segment.

The activL Artificial Disc for one-level lumbar use is a weight-bearing modular implant consisting of two endplates and one polyethylene inlay and is intended as an alternative to fusion. It’s designed to allow controlled motion at the surgery level.

Total disc replacement is a bulky metallic prosthesis designed to replace the entire disc: annulus, nucleus and endplates. These prostheses use an invasive anterior (trans- or retro-peritoneal) approach that requires the presence of a vascular surgeon. Dislodgements, wear debris, degeneration of adjacent intervertebral discs, facet joint arthrosis and subsidence of this type of prosthesis have been reported. The artificial nucleus substitute preserves the remaining disc tissues and their functions. Its design allows its implantation through a posterior approach, but the major limitation of such nucleus prosthesis is that it can be used only in patients in whom disc degeneration is at an early or intermediate stage, because it requires the presence of a competent natural annulus. As a hydrogel-based device, it is fragile, and so does not resist the outstanding biomechanical constraints of the lumbar spine (shear forces). As inert materials, they may lose their mechanical properties over time, and tears and breakages have been reported. Replacing the nucleus only and leaving in place a damaged annulus generates the conditions for implant extrusion or recidivism of discal herniation.

In addition to disc replacements, there are current treatment options for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, which represent new options for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. A variety of approaches are used to regenerate tissues. These approaches can be categorized into the following three groups:

While Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation, or ACT, has been used for a few years to repair articular cartilage, tissue engineering for disc repair remains in its infancy. Intensive research is currently underway, and animal studies have shown the feasibility of tissue-engineered intervertebral disc. Typically, articular cartilage is a tissue that is not naturally regenerated once damaged. Recently, efforts have been made to reconstruct damaged biological tissues by regenerating a portion of the damaged tissues in laboratories. This approach, defined as “tissue engineering,” has received tremendous attention.

Tissue engineering involves the development of biocompatible materials capable of specifically interacting with biological tissues to produce functional tissue equivalents. Tissue engineering has a basic concept of collecting a desired tissue from a patient, isolating cells from the tissue specimen, proliferating cells, seeding the proliferated cells onto a biodegradable polymeric scaffold, culturing the cells for a predetermined period in vitro, and transplanting back the cell/polymer construct into the patient. More interestingly, recent pilot clinical trials have shown that ACT is an efficient treatment of herniated disc. The main disadvantage of ACT for disc repair is that it requires a disc biopsy. Therefore, there is a need for an improved method to restore disc anatomy and improve its functioning, and there remains a need for an improved method of cartilage repair.

Our Solution

CybroCell™ is an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy for degenerative disc disease This new technology is being designed as an alternative method for repairing the cartilage of the intervertebral disc (or any other articular cartilage). The method is based on using Human Dermal Fibroblasts, or HDFs, which are forced to differentiate into chondrocyte-like cells in vivo using the mechanical force and intermittent hydrostatic pressure found in the spine, for chondrogenic differentiation of fibroblasts. We believe our solution will prove superior to existing treatments because it is less invasive, regenerates the disc, restores function and reduces pain, without debilitating long-term effects. We received IND clearance from the FDA on November 7, 2018, with an IND number of 18151. The trial is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of CybroCell™ administered through injection directly into a damaged intervertebral disc. The trial will enroll up to 15 participants with a primary outcome of safety and a secondary outcome of efficacy. Safety will be assessed as the occurrence/frequency of adverse events during the study procedures and for up to 12 months afterwards and will be recorded regardless of severity or relatedness to treatment. Serious adverse events will be documented throughout the 12-month follow-up period. The incidence and nature of adverse events will be tabulated and analyzed at baseline, pre, and post procedure including the three, six, and 12-months evaluations. These include complete physical exam (including vital signs of blood pressure, temperature, and heart rate), laboratory determinations (including urinalysis, hematology, and biochemistry), review of medical history, review of medication history, Dallas pain questionnaire, and patient questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary efficacy outcome will assess subjective and objective parameters at three months, six months, and 12 months post CybroCell™ implantation and compare to those measured at baseline pre-implantation. These parameters will include visual analog scale, patient questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index), Beck Depression Inventory, Dallas pain questionnaire, range of motion test, and radiological assessment using MRI to evaluate morphological changes to the treated discs.

We are currently in the process of finalizing the experimental cell bank production which will be transferred to a contract development and manufacturing organization, or CDMO, for the manufacturing of the master cell bank and working cell bank per FDA requirements and will submit the necessary documentation to the FDA. Our quotes from the CDMO for carrying out this work have been obtained.

We have completed two animal studies. Sixteen animals were used in the first pilot study (PMID 27853661) with the objective of determining the effects of intradiscal transplantation of neonatal human dermal fibroblasts, or nHDFs, on intravertebral disc, or IVD, degeneration by measuring disc height, magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, signal intensity, gene expression, and collagen immunostaining. The results indicated that in the nHDF group there was a 10% increase in disk height index after eight weeks of treatment with a p value of <.05, while there was no significant difference in the saline treated group. When compared with the saline treated group, discs treated with nHDFs showed reduced expression of inflammatory markers, a higher ratio of collagen type II over collagen type I gene expression, and more intense immunohistochemical staining for both collagen types I and II. In the second study (PMID 30142460) 38 animals were used with the objective of determining the impact of donor source on the therapeutic effect of dermal fibroblast treatment on disc degeneration and inflammation when comparing rabbit dermal fibroblasts, or RDFs, to nHDFs. Eight weeks after treatment, disc height indexes of discs treated with nHDF increased significantly by 7.8% (p<.01), whereas those treated with saline or RDF increased by 1.5% and 2.0%, respectively. Gene expression analysis showed that discs transplanted with nHDFs and RDFs displayed similar inflammatory responses (p=.2 to .8). Compared to intact discs, expression of both collagen types I and II increased significantly in nHDF-treated discs (p<.05), trending to significant in RDF-treated discs, and not significantly in saline treated discs. The ratio of collagen type II/collagen type I was higher in the IVDs treated with nHDFs (1.26) than those treated with RDFs (0.81) or saline (0.59) and intact discs (1.00). Last, proteoglycan contents increased significantly in discs treated with nHDF (p<.05) and were trending toward significance in the RDF- treated discs compared to those treated with saline. The results from the studies were positive and resulted in “first in human” trial approval. The technology allowed for differentiation of the HDFs into chondrocytes and the cells thrived in the spinal disc environment. The results showed the cells remained in the disc and did not migrate. Further, the cells created a biologic condition which appeared to increase the disc height.

Below is a summary of animal study results from Howard An, M.D., Director, Spine Fellowship Program, Rush University Medical College:

Our studies have shown that this biological treatment using human dermal fibroblast cells, has great potential as a cell therapy for disc degeneration. When these cells were injected into a degenerating rabbit disc, they were retained in the disc for up to 8 weeks. Collagen Type II gene expression, a marker for disc repair and regeneration, was higher in the discs treated with human dermal fibroblast cells than those in the control treatment. Also higher in the cell treated discs were the disc heights and cell number. Together, this data suggests that human dermal fibroblast cells are a promising option for cell therapy to restore the biological function and reduce symptoms of intermediate or progressive degenerative discs.

We have received IND clearance from the FDA, conditional upon approval of our master cell bank, to run a Phase 1/2 study for patients suffering from degenerative disc disease and will be conducting this study within the United States. A timeline will be determined through discussions with the FDA.

Market Opportunity

Degenerative disc disease therapeutics represents an approximately $26.0 billion¹ per year market. In addition to therapeutics, degenerative disc disease results in approximately 1.2 million orthopedic surgeries per year, at a cost of approximately $60,000 to $100,000 each, in the United States alone. CybroCell™ could replace therapeutics or defer many of these surgeries if it proves successful in regenerating disc cartilage and alleviating pain.

¹ Fortune Business Insights Report, “Degenerative Disc Disease Therapeutics: Global Market Analysis. Insights and Forecast 2022-2029,” p.13.

CYMS101 for Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis, or MS, has been characterized into four distinct clinical subtypes, differing in the age of onset, aggressiveness and progression of the disease, and frequency of relapses. Most MS cases (85%) follow a relapsing-remitting pattern, or RRMS, with an average relapse every 12 to 18 months in an untreated population, and short-term episodes of neurologic deficits that resolve completely or almost completely. MS relapse is commonly defined as new or worsening symptoms that last 24 hours in duration and occur in the absence of fever or infection. Other patients may transition to a more aggressive disease form known as secondary progressive MS, or will experience steadily progressive neurologic deterioration without relapses, known as primary progressive MS.

There is no primary indicator test for MS, but common testing for suspected MS involves MRI studies, evoked potentials testing, lumbar puncture/spinal tap, and other objective functional tests.

Once a diagnosis of MS has been determined, ongoing periodic disability measurement testing will occur as a standard clinical practice. The first Disability Status Scale was introduced by Kurtzke in 1955 and was later enhanced in 1983 into the Expanded Disability Status Scale, or EDSS. Over time, the EDSS has become the standard against which most MS clinical outcome measures are compared. Eight functional neurological systems are measured by the EDSS including vision, brainstem, pyramidal, cerebellar, sensory, bowel/bladder, mental/cerebral and ambulation (500m walk).

Other disability measurement tests include the Scripps Neurological Rating Scale, which is an overall neurological assessment; the Nine-Hole Pin Test, which measures arm function; and the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test, which measures ambulation function. The RAND 36-Question Health Survey may also be used, which is a general Quality of Life survey utilized by managed care organizations and by Medicare for routine monitoring and assessment of care outcomes in adult patients.

Available Treatments for MS

There is no known cure for MS. Treatments available for MS include steroids for temporary flare-ups, disease-modifying drugs, and drugs that target specific symptoms such as balance, vision, spasticity, sexual dysfunction, and bladder or bowel control. The mechanism of action of current MS disease-modifying drugs is to block the host’s immune-mediated attacks on the nerves to inhibit or minimize the progressive destruction of myelin. While these drugs may reduce the frequency of exacerbations and slow the disease progression from inducing further nerve damage, there is no myelin or nerve regenerative capability in any of them to restore the cumulative damage already in place. Additionally, as the disease progresses further, the ability for any of these drugs to effectively block immune-mediated myelin or nerve destruction becomes more blunted. Most MS drugs come with identified risks and side effects, including “black box” warnings.

Key companies providing existing MS treatments include:

New Treatments Being Developed

Research and development in the neurological therapy area has always been active. Various novel molecules are being investigated for the treatment of MS. Some of the key pharmaceutical players are emphasizing the improvement of the disabilities associated with MS. The pipeline portfolios of various companies include agents with different mechanisms of action, which are expected to boost their demand from physicians, aiming to change the treatment algorithm in the coming years.

For a decade, various companies such as Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis AG, among others, have been investing in the treatment for MS to bring novel therapeutics with high efficacy and potency for patients. These companies have recently launched therapeutics intended for the most prevalent form of MS. In August 2020, the FDA approved Novartis AG’s Kesimpta, the only self-administered, targeted B-cell therapy for patients with relapsing MS, and in March 2021, Johnson & Johnson received FDA approval for the launch of Ponvory as a daily oral drug for treatment against MS.

The cost, outcome and quality of drugs approved is a priority of physicians as well as patients. Physicians play an important role in developing an interdisciplinary approach for the management of MS, which is a key cause for manufacturers to focus on novel molecules with different mechanisms of action. For instance, TG Therapeutics, Inc.’s ublituximab was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, in adults.

The approval and commercialization of these recently approved drugs for the treatment of symptoms associated with MS is expected to boost the MS drug market growth globally in the near future.

Our Solution

We are developing CYMS101 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy to treat MS. After completing animal studies using CYMS101 (allogeneic fibroblast cells), we received approval from Mexico for the conduct of clinical investigations using the fibroblast cell composition for patients with MS, and have completed the Phase 1 study called “Feasibility Study of Tolerogenic Fibroblasts in Patients with Refractory Multiple Sclerosis.” The study was conducted in five participants. The primary objective of the study was to assess safety, and the secondary objective was to assess efficacy. The results of the study for safety were no adverse effects during intravenous injection of the tolerogenic fibroblasts, no short or long-impact in complete blood count test during the 16-week monitoring period, and no short or long impact in electrocardiogram results during the 16-week monitoring period. In addition, the results of the study for efficacy included:

Although determining the mode of action is not necessary for filing for FDA approval (Brown and Wobst, 2020), and to date between 10-20% of approved drugs have no known mode of action determined (Moffat et al., 2017), we are currently conducting further research to determine the mode of action of fibroblasts in oligodendrocyte expansion. We will file an IND application for a Phase 2 clinical trial in MS in the United States. While determining the mode of action will be optimal, having a general sense of possible mode of action will have a tangible benefit in the development, optimization and mitigation of possible side-effects. We will likely seek a strategic partner to collaborate with us on the development of CYMS101 either before initiating the Phase 2 study, or after its completion, if successful, and prior to commencing with a Phase 3 clinical trial.

Market Opportunity

The MS drug market’s annual revenue is presently approximately $24.0 billion² globally, with 48% of the revenues generated in the United States. The key companies in this market include Biogen Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi, and Novartis AG. While there are more than 20 approved treatments, most of them have serious adverse effects and there are presently no cures. Both private and public organizations are increasing their investments in search of better treatments for this complex disease, including treatments that restore lost function, and government initiatives to improve access to MS drugs in developing economies are another driver of future growth in the MS market.

CYWC628 for Wound Healing

Wound Care/Healing

A chronic wound is one that is usually arrested in the inflammatory stage and cannot progress to the proliferative and remodeling phase of healing. Proinflammatory cytokines produced by necrotic tissue, foreign material and bacteria allow the inflammatory stage to continue. In addition, changes in the cellular deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, synthesis leads to increased formation of metalloproteases that impede the body’s attempt to heal by overwhelming the building blocks—chemotactant factors, growth factors and mitogens—needed for normal wound healing. Fibroblasts, an essential cell in the wound healing process, is epigenetically altered in the setting of chronic wounds so that their ability to replicate as well as produce the necessary building blocks for the formation of granulation tissue is altered. Further, the keratinocytes at the periphery of the wounds are phenotypically different so that while being able to proliferate, they cannot fully differentiate into migrating keratinocytes. This explains the epithelial build up often seen around the edge of the wound.

Diabetic foot ulcers are the most prominent type of chronic wounds. The rising prevalence of chronic diseases globally, is leading to increased incidence of chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers. These chronic wounds, especially late-stage “hard-to-heal ulcers,” exert a huge economic cost burden on healthcare agencies globally. Furthermore, over 50% of diabetic foot ulcers become infected, which raises the risk of hospitalization, amputation and death.

² Fortune Business Insight Report, “Multiple Sclerosis Drugs: Global Market Analysis, Insights and Forecast, 2022-2029,” p.13.

Available Wound Care Treatments

Several treatments are presently available for treatment of chronic wounds, including Apligraf, Grafix, DermACELL and TheraSkin. Apligraf is comprised of neonatal keratinocytes, and neonatal fibroblasts within a bovine collagen matrix, and may be used to treat venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. Grafix is a cryopreserved human placental membrane that may be used as a wound cover, wrap and/or barrier to treat acute and chronic wounds, diabetic ulcers, pressure injuries, surgical wounds, burns and venous ulcers. DermACELL is a technologically advanced dermal matrix comprised of intact cellular matrix that has at least 97% of DNA removed and may be used in the treatment of chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers. TheraSkin is a cryopreserved human skin allograft with both epidermis and dermis layers that may be used to promote wound healing.

New Treatments Being Developed

Increasing application of bioactive therapies like skin grafting and growth factors in urgent treatment of wounds like diabetic foot ulcers is resulting in high investment of market players in research and development of these therapies. Accordingly, the rise in adoption rate of advance bioactive therapies for rapid wound healing is expected to propel the growth of wound care market. For example, in February 2021, Axio Biosolutions Private Limited received CE mark from Europe for its MaxioCel advanced wound care product. The bioactive microfiber gelling technology helps wounds heal quickly.

Distinct clinical benefits offered by negative pressure wound therapy, or NPWT, coupled with introduction of new advanced features such as single use and portability, among others, for effective wound care is boosting the demand for NPWT devices from healthcare professionals globally. In January 2021, Smith & Nephew plc published that its PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy system significantly reduced surgical site infections by 63.0% and dehiscence by 30.0%. In January 2019, Applied Tissue Technologies LLC received FDA approval for its Platform Wound Dressing, NPWT device that eliminates the use of foam or gauze dressings. In April 2019, PolarityTE, Inc. launched clinical trials for its SkinTE regenerative tissue product for chronic wounds. The trials will evaluate SkinTE’s effectiveness in treating diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers.

Moreover, new players are entering the wound care market by focusing on allograft, xenograft, nanofibre, dermal substitutes and cell-based therapies to cater the unmet needs and growing demand for urgent and effective treatment among patients.

Our Solution

We are in the early stages of developing CYWC628 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy for wound healing. Our studies are presently focused on utilizing fibroblasts and fibroblast-derived cells to treat wounds in diabetic mice and rats. Based upon our results achieved to date, we plan to pursue an IND submission with the FDA for wound healing as early as 2024.

Market Opportunity

The wound care market size was valued at approximately $17.0 billion³ globally in 2021, with more than half of the revenue generated in the United States and Europe, and, according to Fortune Business Insights published in March 2022, was projected to grow to approximately $28.0 billion by 2029. The rising prevalence of chronic diseases globally is leading to increased incidence of chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers. The huge economic cost burden exerted by chronic and acute wounds has led to an increase in initiatives being undertaken by governments globally, to create awareness among the general population for early diagnosis of wounds. These initiatives, along with improving reimbursement policies for wound care in these countries, are anticipated to drive the adoption of wound care products and lead to continued growth in this market.

³Fortune Business Insights, “Wound Care: Global Market Analysis, Insights and Forecast, 2022-2029,” p. 26.

Our Early-Stage Research

CYTER915 for Extension of Life

Extension of Life

Fibroblasts are no longer considered as mere structural components of organs but as dynamic participants in immune processes. Fibroblasts produce an environment that influences regulatory T cell migration, proliferation and activity, to ensure immunotolerance.

One of the key organs of the immune system is the thymus. It serves a vital role in T cell maturation and selection, elimination of self-reactive cells, establishment of central tolerance and T cell migration to recognize a wide range of pathogens. A variety of cells have been identified inside the thymus. These include epithelial cells, thymocytes, dendritic cells, or DC, macrophages, B lymphocytes, myoid cells, endothelial cells and fibroblasts. With age, the thymus declines in functionality through a process referred to as thymus or thymic involution. Publications have indicated that the process of involution enhances regulatory T cell generation which leads to increased susceptibility to pathogen infections, tumors and autoimmune diseases.

The thymus is critically important to the immune system, which serves as the body’s defense mechanism providing surveillance and protection against diverse pathogens, tumors, antigens and mediators of tissue damage. The immune system comprises a complex network of cellular and molecular components subdivided into thymus-independent (innate) and thymus-dependent (adaptive) arms which function synergistically in all immune responses. Innate immunity constitutes the first line of defense and is mediated by innate immune cells such as tissue macrophages, DC and granulocytes which elicit their effector function within minutes to hours following antigen exposure. Innate cells become activated via germ-line encoded pattern recognition receptors, including toll like receptors and nucleotide oligomerization domain-like receptors, which recognize invariant features of pathogens (pathogen-associate molecular patterns) and tissue damage.

Once activated, innate cells such as macrophages and neutrophils can effectively clear antigens via phagocytosis. Other types of innate cells, such as DC, take up and process antigens, resulting in expression of antigenic epitopes in conjunction with their major histocompatibility complex, or MHC, or human leukocyte antigen molecules. These DC can then serve as antigen-presenting cells for the priming of the adaptive immune system. In this way, the early innate response is coupled to, and facilitates, adaptive immunity.

The adaptive immune system consists of T and B lymphocytes which express specific antigen recognition receptors and develop highly specialized effector functions with the ability to form long-term immunological memory. Both B cells and T cells develop from bone marrow-derived progenitors; while mature B cells are exported to the periphery directly from the bone marrow, T cell development, maturation and export require critical differentiation steps to occur in the thymus. Thymus-dependent T cell differentiation processes include expression of an antigen-specific cell surface T cell receptor through recombination of germline-encoded gene segments, and thymic “education” involving negative selection of potentially self-reactive T cells and positive selection of T cells with the capacity to recognize antigens encountered in the periphery. These important thymic processes ensure that T cells can recognize antigens in the context of self-MHC, but do not elicit self-reactivity.

The spleen is one of the key secondary lymphoid organs responsible for the rapid response of the immune system to pathogens in the blood, and to maintain a long-term adaptive response to such pathogens. The spleen also serves as the key organ for iron metabolism and erythrocyte homeostasis. The organ also functions as a key storage site for platelets and leukocytes. A variety of cells have been identified in the spleen, including endothelia cells, mesothelial cells, reticular cells, erythrocytes, granulocytes, mononuclear cells, hemopoietic cells, macrophages, dendritic cells, plasma cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and migrating B cells. With age, the structure and function of the spleen changes, leading to decreased ability to respond positively to vaccination, increased susceptibility to viral and bacterial pathogen infections, and increased incidence of autoimmune disease. Accordingly, there is a need for improving and extending the productive life of the thymus and spleen through cell therapy, which could lead to an extension of human life by defeating the diseases that are allowed to proliferate during the declining process of these vital glands.

Our Solution

Our research program is in the early stages and is being designed to regenerate or reinvigorate production of the thymus and/or spleen. The regeneration comprises organogenesis and/or T cell development, wherein the tissue is differentiated and/or expansion of epithelial cells uses activated or inactivated fibroblasts. In addition to fibroblasts, we anticipate using other agents such as nucleic acids, cytokines, chemokines, transcription factors, epigenetic factors, growth factors, hormones or a combination thereof. The population of cells may be activated in vitro or ex vivo. The next step in developing fibroblasts for thymic or splenic involution reversal will be to design and conduct preclinical studies to demonstrate whether thymic or splenic involution reversal can be achieved in animal models.

Market Opportunity

The global anti-aging therapeutics market was estimated to have exceeded $500.0 million in 2021 and is expected to experience annual double-digit growth over the next ten years as aging populations and standards of living are increasing globally. The demand for effective regenerative medicine solutions for the aging population is higher than ever. As a result, anti-aging therapeutics are being developed by several companies using stem cells and regenerative medicine to identify, prevent, cure, and reverse age-related dysfunctions, illnesses, and diseases.

CYPS317 for the Treatment of Psoriasis

Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a complex and chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease that afflicts approximately 2% of the world population and affects primarily the skin, nails and joints. Psoriasis has a profound impact on the quality of life, leading to an increase in rate of anxiety and depression. The disease is also associated with a significant number of comorbidities such arthritis, cardiometabolic disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and depression. Psoriasis manifests as raised, red, scaly patches on the skin, which can appear on various parts of the body. Individuals with psoriasis have an increased risk of developing psoriatic arthritis, along with metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, which can have a significant impact on their overall health and quality of life.

The pathophysiology of psoriasis is complex, involving immune dysregulation, keratinocyte hyperproliferation, and immune cell infiltration into psoriatic lesions. As a result, targeted therapies have been developed to modulate the immune response and reduce inflammation in individuals with psoriasis. While current biological therapies focusing on the selective blockade of interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 signaling have shown significant efficacy in psoriasis treatment, they are accompanied by several challenges, including significant side effects, variable treatment responses, and diminished effectiveness over time. Consequently, cell therapy has emerged as a promising approach to psoriasis management. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), derived from diverse sources, have demonstrated therapeutic potential in both psoriasis patients and animal models. Their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties are believed to play pivotal roles. They have been shown to directly affect keratinocytes, T lymphocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells (DCs), thereby reducing disease severity, immune cell infiltration, and cytokine production associated with psoriasis.

Our Solution

Fibroblasts share phenotypic and functional properties with MSCs and are increasingly recognized as key players in immune modulation. In clinical settings, fibroblasts have been applied in wound care, effectively treating conditions such as diabetic foot ulcers and recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Their therapeutic potential has also been observed in preclinical models of autoimmune diseases, including type I diabetes, alopecia areata, arthritis, and multiple sclerosis [. These findings shed light on the prospect of using fibroblasts in psoriatic patients who do not respond to currently available therapies. As an effective immune modulator, fibroblasts have demonstrated their capacity to alleviate autoimmunity by stimulating regulatory T cells (Tregs) while suppressing pro-inflammatory Th17 cells, autoreactive T cells, and DC maturation. Consequently, fibroblasts may positively impact the onset and progression of autoimmune disease. Notably, fibroblasts offer a solution to scalability challenges often associated with MSC therapy, rendering them a cost-effective alternative to MSCs, particularly for patients requiring long-term treatment and at risk of relapse.

TCB190 for the Treatment of Certain Cancers

Our research on certain cancers is just beginning and further information about the opportunity will be released as it becomes available.

Manufacturing and Supply

We currently produce our cell therapy product candidates at our laboratory facility in Houston, Texas. We are in the process of contracting with a CDMO for the transfer of our experimental cell bank to produce our master cell bank, working cell bank and our fibroblast cell-based product candidate to enable clinical trials. If our product candidates receive marketing approval, we will evaluate the longer-term feasibility of building our own cGMP manufacturing facility or continuing to outsource production to a CDMO for clinical testing and commercial supply. We presently rely on third parties for certain portions of the cell therapy manufacturing process and will likely continue to do so in the future.

Intellectual Property

We were formed in April 2021 as a spinout from FibroGenesis. In connection with our formation, we issued the equivalent of 8,750,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock to FibroGenesis in exchange for a patent assignment agreement, or the Patent Assignment Agreement, and an intellectual property cross-license agreement, or the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreement. The Patent Assignment Agreement transfers all right, title and interest to certain patents/applications from FibroGenesis to us, and the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreement allocates between FibroGenesis and us, exclusive fields of use for both assigned and retained patents issued/pending.

Through the Patent Assignment Agreement and the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreement, FibroGenesis has effectively granted to us exclusive rights to develop fibroblasts in the following fields of use:

FibroGenesis has retained exclusive rights for all other fields of use for both issued patents and patent applications transferred to us or retained by FibroGenesis.

The issued patents and patent applications assigned to us, along with additional patent applications filed independently by us after inception, include, as of the date hereof, a total of 48 patents and 109 patent applications pending. Our patent protections for our issued patents generally expire in years ranging from 2027 to 2043. 

All of our issued patents are covered by the Patent Assignment Agreement and consist of 10 issued patents in the United States, eight issued patents in Australia, four issued patents in Japan, four issued patents in the United Kingdom, three issued patents in France, three issued patents in Germany, three issued patents in Italy, three issued patents in Spain, three issued patents in Hong Kong, two issued patents in Canada, two issued patents in China, two issued patents in Switzerland, and the remaining issued patent in Europe. One of our issued patents is also covered by the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreement, which patent was issued in the United States.

Given present patent ineligibility laws concerning products of nature, there are presently no composition of matter patents covering CybroCell™, although there are patents related to the production of CybroCell™. We currently have patent applications pending for composition of matter for both CYMS101 and CYWC628.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. We typically rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We protect trade secrets and know-how by establishing confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and partners. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual or entity’s relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also generally provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our property.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. Our competitors have developed, are developing or may develop products, product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may attempt to develop product candidates. In addition, our products may need to compete with off-label drugs used by physicians to treat the indications for which we seek approval. This may make it difficult for us to replace existing therapies with our products.

We are developing CybroCell^TM for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Our competitors in the market for degenerative disc disease include Aesculap Implant Systems, LLC, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, DiscGenics, Inc., Spine BioPharma, Inc. and Ferring B.V. In July 2021, Aesculap Implant Systems, LLC announced the long-term reporting from its pivotal trial for the activl® Artificial Disc.

We are developing CYMS101 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy to treat MS. Key companies currently providing MS treatments include Biogen, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Novartis AG. Various companies, such as Sanofi and Novartis AG, have been investing in the treatment for MS to bring novel therapeutics with high efficacy and potency for patients. These companies have recently launched therapeutics intended for the most prevalent form of MS. In August 2020, the FDA approved Novartis AG’s Kesimpta, the only self-administered, targeted B-cell therapy for patients with relapsing MS, and in March 2021, Johnson & Johnson received FDA approval for the launch of Ponvory as a daily oral drug for treatment against MS. TG Therapeutics, Inc.’s ublituximab for the indication of RMS was also recently approved by the FDA for treatment of MS.

We are in the early stages of developing CYWC628 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy for wound healing. We face competition from several treatments presently available for treatment of chronic wounds, including Apligraf, Grafix, DermACELL and TheraSkin. In addition, increasing application of bioactive therapies like skin grafting and growth factors in urgent treatment of wounds like diabetic foot ulcers is resulting in high investment by companies in research and development of these therapies. In January 2019, Applied Tissue Technologies LLC received FDA approval for its Platform Wound Dressing, NPWT device that eliminates the use of foam or gauze dressings. In April 2019, PolarityTE, Inc. launched clinical trials for its SkinTE regenerative tissue product for chronic wounds. In January 2021, Smith & Nephew plc published that its PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy system significantly reduced surgical site infections by 63.0% and the dehiscence by 30.0%, and in February 2021, Axio Biosolutions Private Limited received CE mark from Europe for its MaxioCel advanced wound care product, a bioactive microfiber gelling technology which helps wounds heal quickly.

Many of our current and potential competitors may have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do. 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 effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of any products we may develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.

Regulatory Environment

Government Regulation and Product Approval

The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries and jurisdictions impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of products such as those we are developing. These entities regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, packaging, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, export and import of our product candidates. Any product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences.

U.S. Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act and their implementing regulations. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities. In addition, an applicant may need to recall a product. Additionally, certain of our product candidates are subject to regulation in the United States as a combination product. If marketed individually, each component would be subject to different regulatory pathways and would require approval of independent marketing applications by the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to a center within the FDA that will have primary jurisdiction over its regulation based on a determination of the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. In the case of our CybroCell™ product candidate, we believe that the primary mode of action is attributable to the biologic component of the product. We expect to seek approval of this combination product candidate through a BLA, and we do not expect that the FDA will require a separate marketing authorization for each of the drug and biologic constituents of the product.

The process required by the FDA before a new product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical trials. Some preclinical studies may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight at the local level as set forth in the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies, and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects, or their legal representative, provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some clinical trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee, which provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial and may recommend that the clinical trial be halted if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-marketing studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 clinical trials or before an NDA or BLA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of a Phase 2 clinical trial to discuss the clinical trial’s results and present plans for a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that they believe will support approval of their new drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and 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 product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

While the IND is active and before product 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, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators 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. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical and other nonclinical 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 are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA or BLA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews an NDA or BLA 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. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity or BLA to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA or BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs or BLAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the 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.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it may 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 3 clinical 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 regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA or BLA with a REMS to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and 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. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more post-marketing studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. Orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development or review of products that meet certain criteria. For example, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA or BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA or BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA or BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fee upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA.

A product, including a product with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A 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 designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of standard NDAs or BLAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, 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 beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

In addition, the FDA may designate a product as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT. The RMAT designation is intended to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedited review of, any product candidate that meets the following criteria: (i) the product candidate qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (ii) the product candidate is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review of BLAs. Cell therapy candidates granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites, as appropriate. RMAT-designated cell therapy candidates that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the completion of clinical trials, patient registries, or through submission of other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records, through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets, or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, RMAT designation and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved NDA or BLA. Drug and biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors 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 cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program.

Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling.

In addition, the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Data Privacy and Security

Other federal legislation may affect our ability to obtain certain health information in conjunction with our research activities. We may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and its implementing regulations, collectively referred to as HIPAA, imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA also prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. We may obtain health information from third parties, such as research institutions, that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA, other than with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

In addition, numerous federal and state laws and regulations that address privacy and data security, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. Failure to comply with data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us, which could include civil and/or criminal penalties, private litigation and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our business.

Failure to achieve and sustain compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us, which could include civil and/or criminal penalties, private litigation and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our operating results and business.

Other U.S. Regulatory Requirements

Biopharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business that may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and responsible individuals may be subject to imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is (i) a covered benefit under its health plan, (ii) safe, effective and medically necessary, (iii) appropriate for the specific patient, (iv) cost-effective and (v) neither experimental nor investigational. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

Healthcare Reform

In March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the biopharmaceutical industry. The ACA contained a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and changes to fraud and abuse laws. Additionally, the ACA:

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, proposed and enacted legislation and executive orders issued by the former Trump administration designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

International Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions.

The regulation of our product candidates outside of the United States varies by country. Certain countries regulate human tissue products as a pharmaceutical product, which would require us to make extensive filings and obtain regulatory approvals before selling our product candidates. Certain other countries classify our product candidates as human tissue for transplantation but may restrict its import or sale. Other countries may have no application regulations regarding the import or sale of products similar to our product candidates, creating uncertainty as to what standards we may be required to meet.

Employees

As of December 31, 2023, we had ten full-time employees, including six employees with medical or doctoral degrees and eight employees directly engaged in research and development, with the rest providing administrative, business and operations support. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider the relationship with our employees to be good.

Our Facilities

Our principal executive offices are located at 455 E. Medical Center Blvd., Suite 300, Houston, Texas, where we lease approximately 23,000 square feet of office space. The space serves as the location of our corporate headquarters. The lease expires in April 2027. In addition, we have leased research labs and offices in Houston, Texas, for our research and cell manufacturing operations.

We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current and anticipated near-term needs and that suitable additional or substitute space would be available if needed.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We are currently not a party to any material legal proceedings and, to the best of our knowledge, no material legal proceedings are currently pending or threatened. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as all other information included in this Annual Report. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects and ability to accomplish our strategic objectives could be materially harmed. As a result, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations and the market price of our common stock. This Annual Report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those described below.

Summary of Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

The successful development of biopharmaceutical products is highly uncertain.

Successful development of biopharmaceutical products is highly uncertain and is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Product candidates that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including:

The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one product candidate to the next and from one country or jurisdiction to the next and may be difficult to predict.

Even if we are successful in obtaining marketing approval, commercial success of approved products may also depend in large part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs and managed care organizations in the United States or country-specific governmental organizations in foreign countries, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost effectiveness of an approved product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government and other healthcare payors were to not provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success may be reduced.

In addition, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, we will be subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding the submission of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, and will need to continue to comply (or ensure that any third-party providers comply) with cGMPs and good clinical practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, there is always the risk that we, a regulatory authority or a third party might identify previously unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these requirements is costly, and any failure to comply or other issues with our product candidates post-approval could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a limited operating history and none of our current product candidates have been approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are a clinical-stage cell therapy company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. None of our current product candidates are approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from such product candidates. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, executing partnerships, raising capital, discovering, identifying and developing potential product candidates, securing related intellectual property rights and conducting and planning preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates. In relation to our current product candidates, we have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any Phase 3 clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. As a result, it may be more difficult for you to accurately predict our future success or viability than it could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields. We also may need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business will suffer.

We have incurred significant net losses since inception, expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through private financings. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, we incurred net losses of $16.5 million, $5.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $24.4 million and $7.9 million, respectively. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for, and commercializing, one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we discover, develop and market additional potential product candidates.

We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we:

The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from period to period, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our working capital and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability.

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue or execute other business development arrangements. We do not expect to generate significant revenue, if any, unless and until we are able to obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize, one or more product candidates we are developing or may develop. Successful commercialization will require achievement of many key milestones, including demonstrating safety and efficacy in clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, satisfying any post-marketing requirements and obtaining reimbursement for our products from private insurance or government payors. Because of the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we are unable to accurately and precisely predict the timing and amount of revenues, the extent of any further losses or if or when we might achieve profitability.

We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough for us to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. If we continue to incur losses as we have since our inception, investors may not receive any return on their investment and may lose their entire investment.

We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and drug development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Developing biopharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception, and we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we initiate and conduct clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for our current product candidates and any future product candidates. Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities to perform clinical trials or preclinical studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Other unanticipated costs may also arise. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to drug sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Because the design and outcome of our anticipated clinical trials are highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of any product candidate we develop. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations.

As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $9.2 million in cash and cash equivalents. And subsequently raised approximately $1.9 million in February 2024. Based on our current business plans, we believe that our existing capital will enable us to fund our operations through at least February 28, 2025. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing capital to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Advancing the development of our product candidates will require a significant amount of capital. In order to fund all of the activities that are necessary to complete the development of our product candidates, we will be required to obtain further funding through equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts, grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves, obtain funds through arrangement with collaborators on terms unfavorable to us or pursue merger or acquisition strategies, all of which could adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through equity, debt financings, or other sources, including up-front payments and milestone payments from strategic collaborations. We may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder.

Such financing may also result in imposition of debt covenants, increased fixed payment obligations or other restrictions that may adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

We are party to a share purchase agreement, dated November 12, 2021, with certain investors, or the Share Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which we may elect to issue and sell to such investors, and if so elected, such investors will be obligated to purchase, for a period commencing on the first day on which our common stock trade on a principal U.S. securities exchange and ending 60 months from such date, up to $100,000,000 worth of shares of our common stock, or the Aggregate Limit. The Share Purchase Agreement is contingent upon our achieving a public listing of our common stock. Pursuant to the agreement, we are required to pay the investors a commitment fee equal to 2% of the Aggregate Limit, payable in cash or shares of our common stock. The commitment fee is payable even if we do not utilize any drawdowns.

In addition, the agreement required us to issue to the investors, on our public listing date, a warrant to purchase up to the number of shares of our common stock that is equal to 4% of our total equity interests outstanding immediately after the completion of our public listing, at a price per share equal to the lesser of (i) the public offering price per share (in the case of an initial public offering) or the closing bid price per share on the public listing date (in the case of a public listing other than an initial public offering) or (ii) the quotient obtained by dividing $700,000,000 by the total number of equity interests.

Our election to issue and sell to the investors, shares of our common stock pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement, or the exercise of the warrant we are issuing upon consummation of our direct listing, will result in further dilution to our existing stockholders and investors who purchase shares of our common stock.

Risks Related to Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business will be substantially harmed.

We are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, impose similar requirements. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other data. Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of any regulatory filing for our product candidates, the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested. We have not submitted for, or obtained, regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Further, development of our product candidates and/or regulatory approval may be delayed for reasons beyond our control.

Applications for our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy, uncertain approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change their policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future product candidates under development on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.

We may encounter substantial delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Before obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and its ultimate outcome is uncertain. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of the process. The outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials.

We do not know whether our future clinical trials will begin on time or enroll patients on time, or whether our ongoing and/or future clinical trials will be completed on schedule or at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

Conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

Additionally, if the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

Our development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will delay the submission of a BLA to the FDA or similar applications with comparable foreign regulatory authorities and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and generate product revenue. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our claims for differentiation or the effectiveness or safety of our product candidate. The FDA has substantial discretion in the review and approval process and may disagree that our data support the claims we propose.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. Any delays to our clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

The outcome of preclinical studies or early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Positive results from preclinical studies and early clinical trials do not mean that future clinical trials will be successful. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We do not know whether any of our product candidates will perform in current or future clinical trials as they have performed in preclinical studies and early clinical trials. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.

Additionally, some of our planned clinical trials may utilize an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving either the investigational product candidate or an existing approved pharmaceutical or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies or clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret trial results as we do, and more trials could be required before we are able to submit applications seeking approval of our product candidates. This is particularly true for clinical trials in rare diseases, where the very small patient population makes it difficult to conduct two traditional, adequate and well-controlled studies, and therefore the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities are often required to exercise flexibility in approving therapies for such diseases. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of our product candidates.

Interim, topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, preliminary and topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary, topline or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, topline or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Our current or future product candidates may cause adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

As is the case with biopharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with our product candidates’ use. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in preclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial, or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Patients in our ongoing and planned clinical trials in the future may suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Some of our product candidates may be used as chronic therapies or be used in pediatric populations, for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory agencies. In addition, if our product candidates are used in combination with other therapies, our product candidates may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation or chemotherapy treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses.

If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA, the EMA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval and becomes a product, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop alone or with collaborators. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:

Any of these events could diminish the usage or otherwise limit the commercial success of our product candidates and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate, if approved by applicable regulatory authorities.

Even if approved, our product candidates may not achieve adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and become a product, they may not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and our financial results could be negatively impacted.

Our refrigerated product candidates  require specific storage, handling and administration at the clinical sites.

Our refrigerated drug product candidates must be stored at low temperatures in specialized refrigerated containers until immediately prior to use. For administration, the drug product container must be carefully removed from storage, warmed to room temperature and inverted to place cells into suspension prior to drawing the product into syringes. The handling, warming and administration of the cell therapy product must be performed according to specific instructions. Failure to correctly handle the product, follow the instructions for warming and administration and/or failure to administer the product within the specified period post-warming could negatively impact the efficacy and or safety of the product.

Because cell therapy is novel and the regulatory landscape that governs any cell therapy product candidates we may develop is rigorous, complex, uncertain and subject to change, we cannot predict the time and cost of obtaining regulatory approval, if we receive it at all, for any product candidates we may develop. At the moment, only a small number of cell therapy products have been approved in the United States and the European Union.

The regulatory requirements that will govern any novel cell therapy product candidates we develop are not entirely clear and are subject to change. Within the broader genetic medicine field, very few therapeutic products have received marketing authorization from the FDA or the EMA. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. Regulatory requirements governing cell therapy products have changed frequently and will likely continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to consolidate the review of cell therapy and related products. Although the FDA has approved other cell-based therapies, there is no assurance that these previous approvals will affect the FDA’s review of our product candidates.

Our cell therapy product candidates will need to meet safety and efficacy standards applicable to any new biologic under the regulatory framework administered by the FDA. In addition to FDA oversight and oversight by IRBs, under the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines, cell therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving National Institutes of Health, or NIH, funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Although the FDA decides whether individual cell therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation.

The same applies in the European Union. The EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, is responsible for assessing the quality, safety, and efficacy of advanced-therapy medicinal products. Advanced-therapy medicinal products include cell therapy medicines, somatic-cell therapy medicines and tissue-engineered medicines. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a cell therapy medicinal candidate that is submitted to the EMA. In the European Union, the development and evaluation of a cell therapy product must be considered in the context of the relevant EU guidelines. The EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cell therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. As a result, the procedures and standards applied to cell therapy products may be applied to any cell therapy product candidate we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point.

Adverse developments in preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by others in the field of cell therapy and cell regulation products may cause the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing cell therapy technologies, either of which could harm our business. In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known, or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Further, as we are developing novel potential treatments for diseases in which, in some cases, there is little clinical experience with potential new endpoints and methodologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory bodies may not consider the clinical trial endpoints to provide clinically meaningful results, and the resulting clinical data and results may be more difficult to analyze. In addition, we may not be able to identify or develop appropriate animal disease models to enable or support planned clinical development. Any natural history studies that we may conduct or rely upon in our clinical development may not be accepted by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities. Regulatory agencies administering existing or future regulations or legislation may not allow production and marketing of products utilizing cell therapy technology in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions. In addition, regulatory action or private litigation could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our research programs or the commercialization of resulting products. Further, approvals by one regulatory agency may not be indicative of what other regulatory agencies may require for approval.

The regulatory review committees and advisory groups described above and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates, or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our research programs and develop future product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and to comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of any product candidates we identify and develop. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approvals and, as a result, may be unable to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, testing, development, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, approval, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, storage, packaging, advertising and promotion, pricing, marketing and distribution of drugs. Rigorous preclinical studies and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process must be successfully completed in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new drug can be marketed. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time-consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. We cannot provide any assurance that any product candidate we may develop will progress through required clinical testing and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us to begin selling them.

We have not conducted, managed or completed large-scale or pivotal clinical trials nor managed the regulatory approval process with the FDA, the EMA or any other regulatory authority with respect to our current product candidates. The time required to obtain approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities is unpredictable and requires successful completion of extensive clinical trials which typically takes many years, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate. The standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when evaluating clinical trial data can and often changes during drug development, which makes it difficult to predict with any certainty how they will be applied. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, including future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA policy during the period of drug development, clinical trials and FDA regulatory review.

Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate for which we are developing and seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product candidate may be subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market the product candidate or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of approving an NDA or BLA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved product candidate. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for the product candidate and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.

We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries, and generally includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval.

We may develop our current and future product candidates in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks, and certain of our product candidates are regulated as combination products.

We may develop our current and future product candidates in combination with one or more other approved or unapproved therapies to treat skin and connective tissue diseases or other diseases. We may also develop certain product candidates as biologic/drug combination products. Additional time may be required to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates because they are combination products. Our product candidates that are biologic/drug combination products require coordination within the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies for review of their biologic and drug components. Although the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies have systems in place for the review and approval of combination products such as ours, we may experience delays in the development and commercialization of our product candidates due to regulatory timing constraints and uncertainties in the product development and approval process.

In addition, even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with any of those existing therapies. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own product candidates, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We also may choose to evaluate our current product candidates or any future product candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell our product candidates we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy for a combination indication if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval either alone or in combination with our product candidate. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

If the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other products or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, quality, manufacturing or supply issues arise with, the products we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidates we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market such combination therapy.

Any product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, each as amended, or collectively, the ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have an adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

There is a risk that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA would not qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity or that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our candidates, if approved, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and potential adverse consequences.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other therapeutic platforms or product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

Risks Related to Our Business

Our company has limited experience in designing clinical trials and may experience delays or unexpected difficulties in obtaining regulatory approval for our current and future product candidates.

We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval. We cannot be certain that our planned clinical trials or any future clinical trials will be successful. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept any or all of our planned BLAs for substantive review or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates. If the FDA does not approve any of our planned BLAs, it may require that we conduct additional costly clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing validation studies before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any BLA or other application that we submit may be significantly delayed, possibly for several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Any failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve any BLA or other application that we submit. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon the development of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. We face similar risks for our applications in foreign jurisdictions.

We intend to identify and develop novel cell therapy product candidates, which makes it difficult to predict the time, cost and potential success of product candidate development.

Our strategy is to identify, develop and commercialize cell therapy product candidates using our proprietary fibroblast technology, which involves collecting skin biopsies from donor patients, isolating cells and expanding them in culture. Our future success depends on the successful development of these novel therapeutic approaches. To date, no fibroblast therapy products have been approved. In addition, there have been a few number of clinical trials involving fibroblasts as compared to other, more conventional forms of therapy.

The sizes of the markets for our product candidates are estimates, and these markets may be smaller than estimated.

The estimates in this annual report of the annual addressable markets for our product candidates are based on a number of third-party estimates. While we believe the assumptions and the data underlying the estimates are reasonable, these assumptions and estimates may not be correct and the conditions supporting the assumptions or estimates may change at any time, thereby reducing the predictive accuracy of these underlying factors. As a result, the estimates of the annual addressable market for our product candidates may prove to be incorrect.

Our long-term prospects depend in part upon discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.

Our future operating results are dependent on our ability to successfully discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates beyond those we currently have in clinical development. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate.

The success of other product candidates we may develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

Even if we successfully advance any other product candidates into clinical development, their success will be subject to all of the clinical, regulatory and commercial risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval of, commercialize or generate significant revenue from our product candidates.

We have never commercialized a fibroblast cell-based therapy product candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any product candidates, if approved, on our own or together with suitable collaborators.

We have never commercialized a fibroblast cell-based therapy product candidate, and we currently have no sales force, marketing or distribution capabilities. To achieve commercial success for our current product candidates, which we may license to others, we will rely on the assistance and guidance of those collaborators. For any approved product candidates for which we retain commercialization rights, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply organization or outsource these activities to a third party.

Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to or persuading adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe our product candidates and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing a sales and marketing organization will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates, if approved. We may not be able to build an effective sales and marketing organization. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may not generate revenues from them or be able to reach or sustain profitability.

We face significant competition, and if our competitors develop and market technologies or products more rapidly than we do or that are more effective, safer or less expensive than the product candidates we develop, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. Our competitors have developed, are developing or may develop products, product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may attempt to develop product candidates. See “Business—Competition” for additional details. In addition, our products may need to compete with off-label drugs used by physicians to treat the indications for which we seek approval. This may make it difficult for us to replace existing therapies with our products.

Many current and potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

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 effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any product candidates that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities 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. Even if the product candidates we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or uneconomical. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of any products we may develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.

We are currently a “controlled company” within the meaning of the Nasdaq Stock Market Rules because our insiders beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our outstanding voting securities.

Our founder and Chief Executive Officer, Pete O’Heeron, collectively and beneficially owns approximately 59% of the voting power of our outstanding voting securities and we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the listing rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. We may rely on certain exemptions from corporate governance rules, including an exemption from the rule that a majority of our board of directors must be independent directors. Although we currently do not intend to rely on the “controlled company” exemption under the Nasdaq listing rules, we could elect to rely on this exemption in the future. In the event that we elected to rely on the “controlled company” exemption, a majority of the members of our board of directors might not be independent directors, and our nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees might not consist entirely of independent directors. Our status as a controlled company could cause our shares of our common stock to be less attractive to certain investors or otherwise harm our trading price. As a result, you would not have the same protection afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these corporate governance requirements.

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives. We are subject to financial reporting and other requirements for which our accounting and other management systems and resources may not be adequately prepared.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the federal securities laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and rules and regulations subsequently implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies, including requirements to file annual, quarterly, and event driven reports with respect to their business and financial condition, and to establish and maintain effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. These rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make certain activities more time-consuming and costly, and require our management and other personnel to devote a substantial amount of time to compliance initiatives.

Despite our best efforts, we may not be able to produce reliable financial statements or file such financial statements as part of a periodic report in a timely manner with the SEC or comply with Nasdaq listing requirements. We also expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm, beginning with the first full year after we become a public company. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. We will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants, adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. We could also become subject to investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

As a public company, we are required to maintain disclosure controls and procedures. Disclosure controls and procedures means our controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We do not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. We believe a control system, no matter how well-designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Due to the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and any design may not succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting due to lack of segregation of duties. Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could cause our investors to lose confidence in us and adversely affect the market price of our common stock. If our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

During the preparation of our financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, our management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting due to a lack of segregation of duties. A material weakness is defined as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Specifically, our management identified a deficiency in our internal controls within the financial reporting function that resulted from a lack of segregation of duties for the period of time covered by our financial statements prior to our Chief Financial Officer joining us in June 2022 when all financial functions were handled by a single individual.

With the addition of our Chief Financial Officer and the changes made to our accounting and financial reporting processes and internal controls during the last half of fiscal year 2022, we have strengthened our internal controls and will continue to evaluate segregation of duties and take initiatives to improve our internal controls over financial reporting as we grow. However, the implementation of these initiatives may not fully address the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting and we cannot assure you that we will not identify other material weaknesses or deficiencies, which could negatively impact our results of operations in future periods.

Risks Relating to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be adversely harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We, our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products manufactured under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Further, there is no guarantee that any such CROs, investigators or other third parties on which we rely will devote adequate time and resources to our development activities or perform as contractually required. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. Consequently, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed or halted entirely.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Additionally, CROs may lack the capacity to absorb higher workloads or take on additional capacity to support our needs. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

If we decide to establish additional collaborations but are not able to establish those collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our product candidate development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We may continue to seek to selectively form collaborations to expand our capabilities, potentially accelerate research and development activities and provide for commercialization activities by third parties. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

We would face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of intellectual property and industry and market conditions generally. The potential collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Further, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a collaboration or other alternative arrangements for future product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view them as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

In addition, mergers among large biopharmaceutical companies may result in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Even if we are successful in entering into a collaboration, the terms and conditions of that collaboration may restrict us from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.

If and when we seek to enter into collaborations, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

In the future we may enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.

We may in the future seek third-party collaborators for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any future collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size biopharmaceutical companies, regional and national biopharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. We have and will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. Collaborations involving our product candidates could pose numerous risks to us, including the following:

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities. Misconduct by these parties could include failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, accurately report financial information or data or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by these parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Risks Related to Manufacturing

Manufacturing cell therapy products is complex and subject to both human and systemic risks. Our third-party manufacturers or we may encounter difficulties in production and sourcing and may be subject to variations and supply constraints of critical components. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to supply our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented.

The manufacture of biologic cell therapy product candidates, and products, if approved, is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including developing advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of biologic products often encounter difficulties in production and sourcing, particularly in scaling up or out, validating the production process, and assuring high reliability of the manufacturing processes (including the absence of contamination), in light of variations and supply constraints of critical components. These problems include logistics and shipping, difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including consistency, stability, purity, and efficacy of the product, product testing, operator error, and availability of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability, purity, and efficacy failures, deficiencies, or other issues relating to manufacturing our product candidates will not occur in the future.

Additionally, our product candidates are derived from cells collected from humans. Such cells may vary in type and quality as the donors may vary in age, medical history and many other factors. We have strict specifications for donor cell material and our product candidates. The donor cell material variability may exceed our manufacturing process capability or deviate from the specified ranges and result in failure in the production of the cell therapy product, lower quality batches, or even require adjustments to the specifications approved by authorities. The donor cell material may also be variable in factors that we currently may not be able to detect with the analytical methods used or may not know how to measure. We may also discover failures with the material after production. As a result, we may not be able to deliver the quality and consistency of our cell therapy products that we need or may need to re-collect cell material which can increase costs and/or cause delay, adversely impact patient outcomes and otherwise harm our clinical trials, reputation, business and prospects.

We may fail to manage the logistics of collecting and shipping patient material to the manufacturing site, shipping the product candidate back to the relevant parties, and experiencing delays or shortages of certain clinical or commercial-grade supplies and components. Logistical and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors, or other factors not in our control, including business interruptions, global supply chain issues, and weather, could prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. Additionally, we have to maintain a complex chain of identity and chain of custody with respect to donor material as it moves to the manufacturing facility, through the manufacturing processes, and ultimately to a patient. Failure to maintain a chain of identity and chain of custody could result in patient death, loss of product, or regulatory action.

The transfer or production of our cell banks to a contract development manufacturing organization may fail and result in delays, additional costs, or technical failure.

We currently purchase our cell therapy product candidates from a contract development and manufacturing organization, or CDMO. We are in the process of contracting with a CDMO, for the transfer of our experimental cell bank to produce our master cell bank, working cell bank and our fibroblast cell-based product candidates to enable clinical trials. If the transfer of our experimental cell bank to the CDMO is not successful, we may encounter delays, additional costs, or technical failure of one or more of our product candidates. Similarly, if the CDMO is unable to produce from the experimental cell bank our master cell bank, working cell bank and our fibroblast cell-based product candidates to enable clinical trials, we may encounter delays, additional costs, or technical failure of one or more of our product candidates.

Changes in the methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards potential marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, formulation, materials and processes, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and product characteristics. Such alterations can also occur due to changes in manufacturers. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives. Any such changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with product candidates produced using the modified manufacturing methods, materials and processes. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay the completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials beyond those we currently anticipate, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates if approved. In addition, we may be required to make significant changes to our upstream and downstream processes across our pipeline, which could delay the development of future product candidates.

If we or our third-party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by us and our third-party manufacturers. We currently outsource all manufacturing to third parties. Still, we and our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability, or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not currently have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

We rely on third parties for our manufacturing process and may, in the future, depend on third-party manufacturers for our product candidates, and this increases the risk related to the timely and sufficient production of our product candidates.

We do not have complete control over all aspects of the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing our cell therapy product candidates. Third-party manufacturers may be unable to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, the EMA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we do not have control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, the EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates and harm our business and results of operations. Furthermore, the raw materials for our product candidates may be sourced, in some cases, from a single-source supplier. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of any of our product candidates or any of our future product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply, or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials.

We currently rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates for use in development and commercialization under the guidance of members of our organization. In the event that we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with such requirements or to perform with certain requirements in relation to quality, timing, or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. In particular, any replacement of our third-party manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to us or the third-party manufacturer. We may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party, and a feasible alternative may not exist. In addition, certain of our product candidates and our own proprietary methods have never been produced or implemented outside of our company. Therefore, we may experience delays in our development programs if we attempt to establish new third-party manufacturing arrangements for these product candidates or methods. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturers or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturers in order to have another third party manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to or voluntarily stop manufacturing our product candidates for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines and that the product produced is equivalent to that produced in our facility. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer and equivalent product could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

Our or a third party’s failure to execute our manufacturing requirements, do so on commercially reasonable terms and timelines, and comply with cGMP requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

Any contamination or interruption in our manufacturing processes, shortages of raw materials, or failure of our suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in delays in our clinical development or marketing schedules.

Given the nature of cell therapy manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination. Any contamination could adversely affect our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Additionally, although our cell therapies are tested for contamination prior to release if a contaminated product candidate was administered to a patient, it could result in harm to the patient. Some of the raw materials required in our manufacturing process are derived from biological sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall, or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs and third-party payors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws, which could expose us to, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require biopharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require biopharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state and require the registration of biopharmaceutical sales representatives. Privacy and data protection laws from outside of the United States, including, for example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, or, collectively, the GDPR, also govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health information in some circumstances, and many of these laws differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. In addition, in the United States, there are a number of states that have enacted laws that govern the privacy and security of personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare and privacy laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we do, or expect to do, business is found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment. If any of the above occur, our ability to operate our business and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may be or become subject to evolving global data protection laws and regulations, which may require us to incur substantial compliance costs, and any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with such laws and regulations may harm our business and operations.

The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we may be or become subject to or affected by numerous federal, state and foreign laws and regulations, as well as regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, security and processing of personal data, such as information that we collect about participants and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, which may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal data, result in liability or impose additional compliance or other costs on us. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. For example, states, such as California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah and Connecticut have recently enacted consumer privacy laws that grant rights to data subjects and places privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. Some observers note that the CCPA and similar legislation could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

In addition to our operations in the United States, which may be subject to healthcare and other laws relating to the privacy and security of health information and other personal information, we may seek to conduct clinical trials in the United Kingdom or the European Economic Area, or the EEA, and may become subject to additional European data privacy laws, regulations and guidelines. We will be subject to the data protection laws of the European Union and United Kingdom in relation to personal data we collect from these territories. These laws impose additional obligations and risk upon our business, including substantial expenses and changes to business operations that are required to comply with these laws. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, or Brexit, and the subsequent separation of the data protection regimes of these territories mean we are required to comply with separate data protection laws in the European Union and United Kingdom, which may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk.

The GDPR, which deals with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, imposes a broad range of strict requirements, including requirements relating to having lawful bases for processing personal data and transferring such information outside the EEA/UK, including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal data, keeping personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments and record-keeping.

The GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA/UK to countries not regarded by European Commission and the United Kingdom government as providing adequate protection, or the third countries, including the United States. These transfers are prohibited unless an appropriate safeguard specified by data protection laws is implemented, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses, or the SCCs, approved by the European Commission, or a derogation applies. The UK has published its own transfer mechanism, the International Data Transfer Agreement and International Data Transfer Addendum, which enables transfers from the UK and has implemented a similar Transfer Equivalence Test. The international transfer obligations under the EU and UK data protection regimes require effort and cost and may result in us needing to make strategic considerations around where EEA/UK personal data is located and which service providers we utilize for the processing of EEA/UK personal data, particularly as the enforcement around GDPR international transfer compliance obligations is currently unclear. The UK Government has also now introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, or the UK Bill, into the UK legislative process with the intention for this bill to reform the UK’s data protection regime. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EU data protection regime. This may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk.

We cannot assure you that any efforts to comply with any obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our reputation and materially harm our business.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and if we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage such inability could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing product candidates, such claims could result in an FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our product candidates or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product candidates, if approved, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any of our product candidates, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Any product candidates we develop may become subject to unfavorable third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, as well as pricing regulations.

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is: (i) a covered benefit under its health plan; (ii) safe, effective and medically necessary; (iii) appropriate for the specific patient; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) neither experimental nor investigational.

Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our product candidates. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any future product candidates from third-party payors, the adoption of those product candidates and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

We face potential liability related to the privacy of health information we obtain from clinical trials sponsored by us.

Most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH. We are not currently classified as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, we may maintain sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, that we receive throughout the clinical trial process, in the course of our research collaborations, and directly from individuals (or their healthcare providers) who enroll in our patient assistance programs. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA.

Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations and/or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use and dissemination of individuals’ health information. Patients about whom we or our collaborators obtain health information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

If we or third-party contract manufacturing organizations, CROs or other contractors or consultants fail to comply with applicable federal, state or local regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or our contractors’ ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and could harm or prevent sales of any affected product candidates that we are able to commercialize, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of developing, commercializing and marketing our product candidates. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business. Increasing use of social media could give rise to liability, breaches of data security or reputational damage.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

The FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from trials conducted in locations outside of their jurisdiction.

We may choose to conduct international clinical trials in the future. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to current GCP requirements; and (iii) the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate mean. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the patient population studied and statistical powering, must be met. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA or the EMA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion and reimbursement of the product candidate in those countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our product candidates is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and become products, they will be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and oversight.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the products, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA, the EMA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the current U.S. administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the previous U.S. administration took several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict whether or how these executive actions, including the Executive Orders, will be implemented, or whether they will be rescinded or replaced under the new U.S. administration. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, the EMA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation.

Existing regulatory policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

For example, the ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments and may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, all of which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

There have also been several changes and challenges to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future product candidate and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved product candidates in the future, if any.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in recent years over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. The U.S. Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new product candidates that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our success depends on our ability to protect our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. If we or our licensors are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate for our technology or our product candidates, our competitive position could be harmed. We and our licensors generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. Our in-licensed patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our in-licensed patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents if issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated or rendered unenforceable by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our and our licensors’ proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our or our licensors’ rights or permit us or our licensors to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our and our licensors’ ability to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Although we may in-license issued patents in the United States and foreign countries, we cannot be certain that the claims in our other in-licensed U.S. pending patent applications, corresponding international patent applications and patent applications in certain foreign countries will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our in-licensed issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our licensors or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we or our licensors may not identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, directed to technology that we license, including those from our licensors and from third parties. We also may require the cooperation of our licensors in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. If they fail to do so, this could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize products or product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as cell therapy product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain, however, that the claims in our pending patent applications covering the composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the USPTO, or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label” for those uses that are covered by our method of use patents. Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

In addition, although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, licensors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

If the scope of any patent protection our licensors obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if our licensors lose any of the patent protection we license, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the existence, issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our in-licensed patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future in-licensed patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidates or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates.

Moreover, the scope of claims in a patent application can be significantly reduced before any claims in a patent is issued, and claim scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we license may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our licensed-in patents may not cover our product candidates or may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review, or PGR, and inter partes review, or IPR, or other similar proceedings in the USPTO or foreign patent offices challenging our patent rights. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity of our in-licensed patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our in-licensed patents and patent applications or those of our licensors has been found. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we or licensors are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Such loss of licensed patent rights, loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

One aspect of the determination of patentability of our inventions depends on the scope and content of the “prior art,” information that was or is deemed available to a person of skill in the relevant art prior to the priority date of the claimed invention. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for typically a period of 18 months after filing, or may not be published at all, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For U.S. applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the America Invents Act, which brought into effect significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including new procedures for challenging pending patent applications and issued patents.

Our patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in PGR procedures, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations or IPR proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In the future, some of our intellectual property may be discovered through government-funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we may acquire or license in the future may be generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. These U.S. government rights may include retained rights in the intellectual property, including a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government may have the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government may also have the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our future intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe their proprietary rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates and products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry, including patent infringement lawsuits, oppositions, reexaminations, IPR proceedings and PGR proceedings before the USPTO and/or foreign patent offices. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates.

As the biopharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current product candidates or future products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time, until the relevant application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of any of our product candidates, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop, could be found to be infringed by our product candidate. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time consuming and could:

Although, to our knowledge, no third party has asserted a claim of patent infringement against us as of the date of this annual report, others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent our product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin activities relating to our product candidates or processes could subject us to potential liability for damages, including treble damages if we were determined to willfully infringe, and require us to obtain a license to manufacture or develop our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Moreover, even if we or our future strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. In addition, we cannot be certain that we could redesign our product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources or more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios, or both. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, our ability to compete in the marketplace, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our in-licensed issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights or the intellectual property rights of our licensors. To cease such infringement or unauthorized use, we and/or our licensors may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our licensors may need to file infringement claims, and our licensors may elect not to file such claims. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our licensors or potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty or written description, obviousness, written description, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings.

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing product candidates, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Derivation or interference proceedings may be necessary to determine priority of inventions, and an unfavorable outcome may require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party.

Derivation or interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or our licensors, or declared by the USPTO or similar proceedings in foreign patent offices may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to, or correct the inventorship of, our or our licensors’ patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our or our licensors’ defense of such proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act could increase uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensors’ patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license.

The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including PGR, IPR, and derivation proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in U.S. patent law, or laws in other countries, could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights, and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us or narrows the scope of our owned and licensed patents.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our or our licensors’ ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. We cannot predict how future decisions by Congress, the federal courts or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our in-licensed patents and other intellectual property.

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our in-licensed patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership or a right to use. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the term of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents directed to our product candidates are obtained, once the patent term has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, patents directed to our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution.

If we or our licensors do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval, if any, of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or 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. A maximum of one patent may be extended per FDA-approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we or our licensors may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case. If we do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Although we have in-licensed pending patent applications in the United States and certain other countries, filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our in-licensed inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our in-licensed inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our in-licensed technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or our licensors have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our or our licensors patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult in those jurisdictions for us to stop the infringement or misappropriation of our or our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property rights, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our or our licensors’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We or our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Accordingly, our or our licensors’ efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

In addition, certain countries, including China and India, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third-party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or our licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation in certain foreign jurisdictions, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patents, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action, which typically last for years before they are concluded, may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders, or it may be otherwise impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. In such cases, we may decide that the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings and that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other product candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by regulations and governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on third parties to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by other types of intellectual property, we rely on the protection of our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information to maintain our competitive position. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties (including, but not limited to, contractors, collaborators, and outside scientific advisors), and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants, licensors and advisors, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We require our employees to enter into written confidentiality agreements that assign to us any inventions, developments, creative works and useful ideas of any description that are conceived of, reduced to practice or developed in the course of their employment. In addition, we require our third-party contractors to enter into a written non-disclosure agreement that requires the third party to not disclose certain of our confidential information in any manner or for any purpose other than as necessary and/or appropriate in connection with their obligations for a defined period of time, subject to certain exclusions. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We may need to share our proprietary information, including trade secrets, with our current and future business partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors.

Moreover, third parties may still obtain this information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we or our licensors do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.

As is common in the biopharmaceutical industry, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other biopharmaceutical companies including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we, our employees, independent contractors, or consultants inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our current or future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, or declared generic or descriptive or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with product candidates in the United States may need FDA approval, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing our Growth

If we are unable to establish sales or marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell or market our product candidates, we may not be able to successfully sell or market our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval.

We currently do not have and have never had a marketing or sales team. In order to commercialize any product candidates, if approved, we must build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services for each of the territories in which we may have approval to sell or market our product candidates. We may not be successful in accomplishing these required tasks.

Establishing an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates will be expensive and time-consuming, and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities could adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market, if we do not have arrangements in place with third parties to provide such services on our behalf. Alternatively, if we choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, we will be required to negotiate and enter into arrangements with such third parties relating to the proposed collaboration. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our approved product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled executive officers and employees.

To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. We are highly dependent on the principal members of our management and scientific and medical staff. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. In particular, the loss of one or more of our executive officers could be detrimental to us if we cannot recruit suitable replacements in a timely manner. The competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the future success of our business. We could in the future have difficulty attracting experienced personnel to our company and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts.

Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better prospects for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover, develop and commercialize our product candidates will be limited and the potential for successfully growing our business will be harmed.

In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, we will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2023, we had ten full-time employees. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize any of our current product candidates and any other product candidate we may develop will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including key aspects of clinical development and manufacturing. We cannot assure you that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by third party service providers is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval of any current or future product candidates or otherwise advance our business. We cannot assure you that we will be able to manage our existing third party service providers or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and/or engaging additional third party service providers, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and any future product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

An active trading market may not develop or continue to be liquid and the market price of shares of our common stock may be volatile.

Our common stock is listed and traded on Nasdaq. Prior to the listing on Nasdaq, there has not been a public market for any of our securities, and an active market for our common stock may not develop or be sustained, which could depress the market price of shares of our common stock and could affect the ability of our stockholders to sell our common stock. In the absence of an active public trading market, investors may not be able to liquidate their investments in our common stock. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares of our common stock, our ability to motivate our employees through equity incentive awards and our ability to acquire other companies, products or technologies by using shares of our common stock as consideration.

In addition, we cannot predict the prices at which our common stock may trade on Nasdaq, and the market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control.

Furthermore, because of our novel listing process on Nasdaq, Nasdaq’s rules for ensuring compliance with its initial listing standards, such as those requiring a valuation or other compelling evidence of value, are untested. In the absence of a prior active public trading market for our common stock, if the price of our common stock or our market capitalization falls below those required by Nasdaq’s eligibility standards, we may not be able to satisfy the ongoing listing criteria and may be required to delist.

In addition, because of our novel listing process, individual investors, retail or otherwise, may have greater influence in setting the public prices of our common stock on Nasdaq and may participate more in our trading than is typical for a firm-commitment underwritten initial public offering. These factors could result in a public price of our common stock that is higher than other investors (such as institutional investors) are willing to pay, which could cause volatility in the trading price of our common stock and an unsustainable trading price if the price of our common stock significantly rises and institutional investors believe our common stock is worth less than retail investors, in which case the price of our common stock may decline over time. Further, if the public price of our common stock is above the level that investors determine is reasonable for our common stock, some investors may attempt to short our common stock, which would create additional downward pressure on the public price of our common stock. To the extent that there is a lack of consumer awareness among retail investors, such a lack of consumer awareness could reduce the value of our common stock and cause volatility in the trading price of our common stock.

The public price of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to the risk factors described in this annual report and others beyond our control, including:

In addition, securities exchanges have experienced price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. Stock prices of many companies have fluctuated in a manner often unrelated to the operating performance of those companies. These fluctuations may be even more pronounced in the trading market for our common stock following the listing of our common stock on Nasdaq as a result of the supply and demand forces described above. In the past, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If we were to become involved in securities litigation, it could subject us to substantial costs, divert resources and the attention of management from our business and harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Future sales of common stock by our Registered Stockholders and other existing stockholders could cause our share price to decline.

Our common stock is listed and traded on Nasdaq. Prior to listing on Nasdaq, there has been no public market for our common stock and there has not been a sustained history of trading in our common stock in “over-the-counter” markets. While our common stock may be sold on Nasdaq by the registered stockholders or by our other existing stockholders in accordance with Rule 144 under the Securities Act, there can be no assurance that any registered stockholders or other existing stockholders will sell any of their shares of common stock and there may be a lack of supply of, or demand for, common stock on Nasdaq. There can be no assurance that the Registered Stockholders and other existing stockholders will not sell all of their shares of common stock, resulting in an oversupply of our common stock on Nasdaq. In the case of a lack of supply of our common stock, the trading price of our common stock may rise to an unsustainable level. Further, institutional investors may be discouraged from purchasing our common stock if they are unable to purchase a block of our common stock in the open market due to a potential unwillingness of our existing stockholders to sell a sufficient amount of common stock at the price offered by such institutional investors and the greater influence individual investors have in setting the trading price. If institutional investors are unable to purchase our common stock, the market for our common stock may be more volatile without the influence of long-term institutional investors holding significant amounts of our common stock. In the case of a lack of market demand for our common stock, the trading price of our common stock could decline significantly and rapidly after our listing. Therefore, an active, liquid and orderly trading market for our common stock may not initially develop or be sustained, which could significantly depress the public price of our common stock and/or result in significant volatility, which could affect your ability to sell your shares of common stock.

We have 2,500 shares of Series C Preferred Stock with super voting rights.

Our capital stock as of the date hereof consists of voting common stock (which we sometimes refer to herein as “common stock”), and Series C Preferred Stock. Our board of directors and stockholders have each approved the creation and issuance of an aggregate of 2,500 shares of Series C Preferred Stock, all of which Series C Preferred Stock were issued in January 2024 to Pete O’Heeron, our founder and Chief Executive Officer.

The Series C Preferred Stock (i) have no dividend rights, (ii) convert into common stock upon any transfer from the initial holder, (iii) have a liquidation preference of $18.00 per share (subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of any stock split, combination, or other similar recapitalization) upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up and (iv) are entitled to 13,000 votes for each share of Series C Preferred Stock.

The Series C Preferred Stock are subject to an irrevocable proxy issued by Pete O’Heeron, the holder of all of the Series C Preferred Stock, in favor and for the benefit of, our board of directors, granting our board of directors the irrevocable proxy, for as long as the Series C Preferred Stock remain outstanding, to vote all of the Series C Preferred Stock on all matters on which the Series C Preferred Stock are entitled to vote, in any manner that our board of directors may determine in its sole and absolute discretion; provided, however, that such irrevocable proxy shall not, without the written consent of Pete O’Heeron, permit our board of directors to vote the Series Preferred Stock with respect to any proposal to amend, delete or waive any rights of Pete O’Heeron with respect to the Series C Preferred Stock as set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. In light of the superior voting rights associated with the Series C Preferred Stock, the irrevocable proxy is intended to ensure that such superior voting rights are utilized in our best interest and to avoid or mitigate conflicts that may arise in the future for Pete O’Heeron as an individual stockholder employee.

In addition to the dilutive effect on the voting power and value of our common stock, the foregoing structure of our capital stock may render our common stock ineligible for inclusion in certain securities market indices, and thus adversely affect the price and liquidity of, and public sentiment regarding, our common stock or other securities. The existence of, and voting rights associated with, our Series C Preferred Stock, either alone or in conjunction with certain of the other provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, such as the requirement to have a staggered board, could also have the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a change in our control or make the removal of our management more difficult.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the Nasdaq Stock Market Rules because our insiders beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our outstanding voting securities.

Our founder and Chief Executive Officer, Pete O’Heeron, collectively beneficially owns approximately 59% of the voting power of our outstanding voting securities and we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the listing rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. We may rely on certain exemptions from corporate governance rules, including an exemption from the rule that a majority of our board of directors must be independent directors. Although we currently do not intend to rely on the “controlled company” exemption under the Nasdaq listing rules, we could elect to rely on this exemption in the future. In the event that we elected to rely on the “controlled company” exemption, a majority of the members of our board of directors might not be independent directors, and our nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees might not consist entirely of independent directors. Our status as a controlled company could cause our shares of common stock to be less attractive to certain investors or otherwise harm our trading price. As a result, you do not have the same protection afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these corporate governance requirements.

You may be diluted by future issuances of preferred stock or additional common stock in connection with our incentive plans, acquisitions or otherwise; future sales of such shares in the public market, or the expectations that such sales may occur, could lower our stock price.

We have adopted an amended and restated certificate of incorporation which authorizes us to issue shares of common stock and options, rights, warrants and appreciation rights relating to our common stock for the consideration and on the terms and conditions established by our board of directors in its sole discretion. We could issue a significant number of shares of common stock in the future in connection with investments or acquisitions. Any of these issuances could dilute our existing stockholders, and such dilution could be significant. Moreover, such dilution could have a material adverse effect on the market price for the shares of our common stock.

The future issuance of shares of preferred stock with voting rights may adversely affect the voting power of the holders of shares of our common stock, either by diluting the voting power of our common stock if the preferred stock votes together with the common stock as a single class, or by giving the holders of any such preferred stock the right to block an action on which they have a separate class vote, even if the action were approved by the holders of our shares of our common stock.

The future issuance of shares of preferred stock with dividend or conversion rights, liquidation preferences or other economic terms favorable to the holders of preferred stock could adversely affect the market price for our common stock by making an investment in the common stock less attractive. For example, investors in the common stock may not wish to purchase common stock at a price above the conversion price of a series of convertible preferred stock because the holders of the preferred stock would effectively be entitled to purchase common stock at the lower conversion price, causing economic dilution to the holders of common stock.

Because we have no current plans to pay cash dividends on our common stock, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell your common stock for a price greater than that which you paid for it.

We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development, commercialization and growth of our business, and therefore we do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. Our future ability to pay cash dividends on our common stock may also be limited by the terms of any future debt securities or credit facility. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of the common stock you purchase or own will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

We are an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company, and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of certain exemptions and relief from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including (i) not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (ii) having the option of delaying the adoption of certain new or revised financial accounting standards, (iii) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this annual report and our periodic reports and proxy statements and (iv) exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We may take advantage of these exemptions until such time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different than the information you receive from other public companies in which you hold stock. Further, pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act, we have elected to take advantage of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. As a result, our operating results and financial statements may not be comparable to the operating results and financial statements of other companies who have adopted the new or revised accounting standards.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) December 31, 2028, (ii) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, (iii) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates was $700.0 million or more as of the last business day of the second fiscal quarter of such year or (iv) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies until the fiscal year following the determination that our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is $250 million or more measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenues are less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is $700 million or more measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

It is possible that some investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result of the foregoing, which may result in a less active trading market for our common stock and higher volatility in our stock price.

Our management and principal stockholders own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of December 31, 2023, our executive officers, directors and five percent or greater stockholders and their respective affiliates, beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 19% of our outstanding common stock on an as converted basis. To the extent that the same group continue to own a significant percentage of our common stock, these stockholders, if they act together, will be able to control the management and affairs of our company and most matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, amendments of our organizational documents and approval of any merger, sale of substantially all our assets or other significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you or other stockholders may feel are in your or their best interest as one of our stockholders.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, in each case, may delay or prevent a take-over that may not be in the best interests of our stockholders.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, in each case, may be deemed to have anti-takeover effects, which include, among others, (i) the existence of our Series C Preferred Stock entitled to 13,000 votes per share of Series C Preferred Stock, as more particularly described elsewhere in this annual report, (ii) a classified board of directors serving staggered three-year terms, (iii) who can fill vacancies of our board of directors, (iv) supermajority voting thresholds for the removal of members of our board, and (v) when and by whom special meetings of our stockholders may be called, and may delay, defer or prevent a takeover attempt.

In addition, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will authorize the issuance of shares of preferred stock which will have such rights and preferences determined from time to time by our board of directors. Following the adoption of the amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval (except as may be required under Nasdaq rules), issue additional preferred shares with dividends, liquidation, conversion, voting or other rights that could adversely affect the voting power or other rights of the holders of our common stock. Further, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that our board of directors could use to implement a stockholder rights plan (also known as a “poison pill”).

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, in each case, will provide for an exclusive forum in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for certain disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, in each case, will provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, (i) the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (c) any action arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or the DGCL, our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine and (ii) to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause or causes of action arising under the Securities Act, including all causes of action asserted against any defendant to such complaint. Pursuant to our planned amended and restated certificate of incorporation, any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in shares of our common stock will be deemed to have had notice of and consented to the forum selection clause in our planned amended and restated certificate of incorporation described in this paragraph.

The foregoing provision would not preclude stockholders that assert claims under the Exchange Act from bringing such claims in federal court, to the extent that the Exchange Act confers exclusive federal jurisdiction over such claims, subject to applicable law.

We believe our choice of forum provision may benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law by chancellors and judges particularly experienced in resolving corporate disputes, efficient administration of cases on a more expedited schedule relative to other forums and protection against the burdens of multi-forum litigation. However, our choice of forum provision may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing claims and may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it believes to be favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. In addition, while the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the choice of forum provision, and there can be no assurance that such provision will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions. If a court were to find the choice of forum provision in our certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

General Risks

Reports published by analysts, including projections in those reports that differ from our actual results, could adversely affect the price and trading volume of our common stock.

Securities research analysts may establish and publish their own periodic projections for our Company. These projections may vary widely and may not accurately predict the results we actually achieve. The price of our common stock may decline if our actual results do not match the projections of these securities research analysts. Similarly, if one or more of the analysts who write reports on us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price could decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, our stock price or trading volume could decline.

Our internal computer systems, or those of any of our CROs, manufacturers, other contractors, consultants, collaborators or potential future collaborators, may fail or suffer security or data privacy breaches or other unauthorized or improper access to, use of, or destruction of our proprietary or confidential data, employee data or personal data, which could result in additional costs, loss of revenue, significant liabilities, harm to our brand and material disruption of our operations.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future CROs and other contractors, consultants, collaborators and third-party service providers, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, cybersecurity threats, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failure. Because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations or result in the unauthorized acquisition of or access to personally identifiable information or individually identifiable health information (violating certain privacy laws such as HIPAA and GDPR), it could result in a material disruption of our drug discovery and development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other similar disruptions. Some of the federal, state and foreign government requirements include obligations of companies to notify individuals of security breaches involving particular personally identifiable information, which could result from breaches experienced by us or by our vendors, contractors or organizations with which we have formed strategic relationships. Notifications and follow-up actions related to a security breach could impact our reputation, cause us to incur significant costs, including legal expenses and remediation costs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the lost data. We also rely on third parties for certain portions of our manufacturing process, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could be exposed to litigation and governmental investigations, the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed, and we could be subject to significant fines or penalties for any noncompliance with certain state, federal and/or international privacy and security laws.

Our insurance policies may not be adequate to compensate us for the potential losses arising from any such disruption, failure or security breach. In addition, such insurance may not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. Further, our insurance may not cover all claims made against us and could have high deductibles in any event, and defending a suit, regardless of its merit, could be costly and divert management attention.

Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire, severe weather conditions, power loss, telecommunications failure, terrorist activity and other events beyond our control, which could harm our business.

Our facility is located in a region which experiences severe weather from time to time. We have not undertaken a systematic analysis of the potential consequences to our business and financial results from a major tornado, flood, fire, earthquake, power loss, terrorist activity or other disasters and do not have a recovery plan for such disasters. In addition, we do not carry sufficient insurance to compensate us for actual losses from interruption of our business that may occur, and any losses or damages incurred by us could harm our business. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

None.

Risk Management and Strategy

We have processes for assessing, identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which are an integral part of decision-making at every level. Such processes include physical, procedural and technical safeguards, response plans, and routine review of our policies and procedures to identify risks and refine our practices.

We have engaged an external Information Technology Managed Service Provider, or IT MSP, to help our management team design, implement and maintain our information technology systems and infrastructure. Members of our executive leadership team provide oversight of the activities of the IT MSP to ensure appropriate controls. Furthermore, the Audit Committee has oversight with respect to our internal controls and managing the risks of cybersecurity threats.

Governance

Our Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing cybersecurity risk and periodically updates our Board of Directors on such matters. The Audit Committee receives periodic updates from management regarding cybersecurity matters and is notified between such updates regarding any significant new cybersecurity threats or incidents. We do not believe that there are currently any known risks from cybersecurity threats that are reasonably likely to materially affect us or our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition, and have not had previous cybersecurity incidents that have materially affected us.

We lease approximately 23,000 square feet of office space for our headquarters in Houston, Texas. This lease ends in November 2027.

We lease approximately 1,600 square feet of office and lab space in Houston, Texas. This lease ends in July 2024.

We believe that our leased facilities are adequate to meet our current needs.

From time to time we may be involved in legal proceedings relating to intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that such legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows. There are no legal proceedings at this time.

Not applicable.

PART II

Market Information for Common Stock

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “FBLG”.

Stockholders

As of February 20, 2024, we have 32,634.366 shares of common stock outstanding held by 1,170 stockholders of record, and 2,500 shares of Series C Preferred Stock held by one holder of record. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. The number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, subject to applicable laws, and will depend upon, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, contractual restrictions and capital requirements.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

There were no sales of unregistered securities by us during the year ended December 31, 2023, that were not previously reported in our Registration on Form S-1 filed with the SEC on February 12, 2023.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Parties

None.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our financial statements and related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this annual report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this annual report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this annual report, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage cell therapy company focused on developing and commercializing fibroblast-based therapies for patients suffering from chronic diseases with significant unmet medical needs, including degenerative disc disease, multiple sclerosis, wound healing, and certain cancers, and potential extension of life applications including thymic and splenic involution reversal. At present, our novel manufacturing process entails collecting excess tissue from surgical procedures and using the allogeneic fibroblasts to grow a cell bank for use in our procedures. Our most advanced product candidates are CybroCell™ and CYMS101.

CybroCell™ is an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy for degenerative disc disease and is being designed as an alternative method for repairing the cartilage of the intervertebral disc (or any other articular cartilage). We have completed two animal studies. The results from the studies were positive and resulted in “first in human” trial approval. We have received IND clearance from the FDA, conditional upon approval of our master cell bank, to run a Phase 1/2 study for patients suffering from degenerative disc disease and will be conducting this study within the United States. A timeline will be determined through discussions with the FDA.

We are developing CYMS101 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy to treat MS. After completing animal studies using CYMS101 (allogeneic fibroblast cells), we received approval to conduct clinical investigations in Mexico using the fibroblast cell composition for patients with MS and have completed a Phase 1 study. The study was conducted in five participants. The primary objective of the study was to assess safety, and the secondary objective was to assess efficacy. We are currently conducting further research to determine the mode of action of fibroblasts in oligodendrocyte expansion and expect to file an IND application for a Phase 2 clinical trial in MS. We will likely seek a strategic partner to collaborate with us on the development of CYMS101 either before initiating the Phase 2 study, or after its completion, if successful, and prior to commencing with a Phase 3 clinical trial.

We are in the early stages of developing CYWC628 as an allogeneic fibroblast cell-based therapy for wound healing. Our studies are presently focused on utilizing fibroblasts and fibroblast-derived cells to treat wounds in diabetic mice and rats. Based upon our results achieved to date, we plan to pursue an IND submission with the FDA for wound healing as early as 2024.

We also have cancer and extension of life programs in the early stages of development, and we plan to accelerate such programs as funding allows.

We currently purchase our cell therapy product candidates from a contract development and manufacturing organization, or CDMO. We are in the process of contracting with a CDMO for the transfer of our experimental cell bank to produce our master cell bank, working cell bank and our fibroblast cell-based product candidates to enable clinical trials. If our product candidates receive marketing approval, we will evaluate the longer-term feasibility of building our own cGMP manufacturing facility or continuing to outsource production to a CDMO for clinical testing and commercial sales.

Since our spinoff from FibroGenesis in April 2021, our operations have included business planning, hiring personnel, raising capital, building our intellectual property portfolio and performing research and development on our product candidates and our fibroblast technology, leveraging the clinical benefits of fibroblasts as the basis of our cell therapy platform.

We have incurred net losses since inception and expect to incur losses in the future as we continue our research and development activities. To date, we have funded our operations primarily through investment from FibroGenesis, the sale of $5.6 million of our convertible promissory notes, which were all subsequently converted to equity, the sale of $18.6 million of preferred stock, and $1.9 million in proceeds from the sale of common stock through the GEM Capital Stock Purchase Agreement.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $9.2 million. Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. We incurred net losses of approximately $16.5 million and $5.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $24.4 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the next several years.

We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we: