10-K

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

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 15(d) of the Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No

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, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth 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 firm 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 recovery 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 Exchange Act.): ☐ Yes ☒ No

As of June 30, 2022, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $427.7 million based on a closing price of $14.60 per share as quoted by The Nasdaq Global Market as of such date. In determining the market value of non-affiliate common stock, shares of the registrant’s common stock beneficially owned by officers, directors and affiliates have been excluded. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 10, 2023 there were 42,954,975 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2023 annual meeting of shareholders, scheduled to be held on June 1, 2023, which the registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year end of December 31, 2022. Except with respect to information specifically incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, the Proxy Statement is not deemed to be filed as part of this Form 10-K.

•

Our business is highly dependent on the success of ADI-001. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for ADI-001 and effectively commercialize ADI-001 for the treatment of patients in our approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed.

•

Our product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the likely success of such product candidates and the time and cost of product candidate development and obtaining regulatory approval.

•

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

•

We may not be able to file investigational new drug (IND) applications to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not permit us to proceed.

•

We have not yet commenced manufacturing operations at our own manufacturing facility and currently depend on the ability of our third-party suppliers and manufacturers with whom we contract to perform adequately, particularly with respect to the timely production and delivery of our product candidates, including ADI-001. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

•

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

•

We will need substantial additional financing to develop our product candidates and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

•

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine may increase the likelihood of supply interruptions which could impact our ability to find the materials we need to make our product candidates.

•

If our collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) is terminated, or if Regeneron materially breaches its obligations thereunder, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed.

•

The FDA regulatory approval process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates.

•

If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

•

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.

•

Unstable market and economic conditions, including the uncertainty tied to rising interest rates and inflation, may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition, results of operations and stock price.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management and expected market growth are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

•

our ability to execute our clinical trials for ADI-001 in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), including the ability to successfully complete our Phase 1 clinical trial and the period during which the results of the trial will become available;

•

our expectations regarding our additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs, including ADI-925, in preclinical development and our expectations regarding our ability to develop other oncology product candidates in our research pipeline;

•

our expectations regarding discussions with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a potential path to support Biologics License Application (BLA) and Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for ADI-001;

•

the anticipated timing of our submission of IND applications or equivalent regulatory filings and initiation of future clinical trials, including the timing of the anticipated results;

•

the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our continuing operations, clinical development plans, including the timing of initiation and completion of studies or trials, financial forecasts and expectations, and other matters related to our business and operations;

•

our expectations regarding the impact of unstable market and economic conditions, including impacts of inflation, on our business, results of operations or financial conditions;

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the “Risk Factors” section, that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures or investments that we may make or enter into.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference herein and have filed or incorporated by reference as exhibits hereto completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. We are responsible for all of the disclosure contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we believe these industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies are reliable.

All brand names or trademarks appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “Adicet Bio,” “Adicet,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Adicet Bio, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as applicable.

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company discovering and developing allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapies for cancer. We are advancing a pipeline of “off-the-shelf” gamma delta T cells, engineered with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) and chimeric adaptors (CAds), to enhance selective tumor targeting and facilitate innate and adaptive anti-tumor immune response for durable activity in patients.

Our approach to activate, engineer and manufacture allogeneic gamma delta T cell product candidates derived from the peripheral blood cells of unrelated donors allows us to generate new product candidates in a rapid and cost-efficient manner. Our allogeneic "off-the-shelf" manufacturing process is designed to allow product from unrelated donors to be stored and sold on demand to treat patients without inducing a graft versus host immune response. This is in contrast to products based on alpha beta T cells, which either must be manufactured for each patient from his or her own T cells, or require significant gene editing to manufacture if the T cells are derived from donors that are unrelated to the patient.

Our lead product candidate, ADI-001, a first-in-class allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapy expressing a CAR targeting CD20, is in an ongoing Phase 1 study for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Our pipeline also includes ADI-925, a novel engineered CAd gamma delta T cell product candidate targeting tumor stress ligands. Our pipeline has several additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs in discovery and preclinical development for both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. We expect to continue to develop product candidates in oncology based on the gamma delta T cell platform using either previously validated antigens or those that we identify and target using CAR, CAd and other technology.

In March 2021, we initiated the first-in-human Phase 1 trial to assess safety and efficacy of ADI-001 in NHL patients. The Phase 1 study for ADI-001 may enroll up to 80 late-stage NHL patients at a number of cancer centers across the United States. The study includes a dose escalation portion followed by dose expansion cohorts to explore the activity of ADI-001 in multiple subtypes of NHL. In April 2022, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for ADI-001 for NHL. In December 2022, interim results from the trial were presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. See “—ADI-001, an Anti-CD20 CAR Gamma Delta T Cell Product Candidate Targeting NHL—Results from Ongoing ADI-001 Phase 1 Trial” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding the results. Subject to further patient follow-up, we plan to discuss with the FDA during the second quarter of 2023 and later with the EMA on a path forward for a potential pivotal program for ADI-001. We intend to initiate a first potential pivotal study in post-CAR T large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients in the second half of 2023, potentially in the third quarter. We also expect to provide an additional clinical update for the ADI-001 Phase 1 study in the first half of 2023.

We are currently developing a pipeline of allogeneic “off-the-shelf” gamma delta T cell therapies, using either previously validated antigens or those that we identify and target using our CAR, CAd or other technology. Our most advanced product candidate in development, ADI-001, is in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for relapsed or refractory aggressive B NHL targeting B-cell antigen CD20. We are also developing a pipeline to advance the research and development of allogeneic CAR and CAd T cell product candidates in both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. We expect to continue to develop product candidates in oncology based on our gamma delta T cell platform using either previously validated antigens or those that we identify and target using CAR, CAd or other technologies.

*ADI-925 is an engineered CAd γδ1 T cell product candidate targeting stress ligands, including MICA/MICB & ULBP1-6, expressed on malignant cells

+ Regeneron exercised its option to license the exclusive worldwide rights to ADI-002

HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; mCRPC: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; MICA/MICB: Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) Class I chain-related protein A/B; NHL: Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; PSMA: Prostate-specific membrane antigen; RCC: Renal cell carcinoma; ST: Solid tumor; ULBP: UL16 binding protein

•

ADI-001: The product candidate furthest along in development is ADI-001, a first-in-class allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapy expressing a CAR targeting CD20, which is in an ongoing Phase 1 study for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL. In December 2022, interim results from the trial were presented at the ASH annual meeting. See “Results from Ongoing ADI-001 Phase 1 Trial” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding the results. Subject to further patient follow-up and discussion with FDA, we plan to transition to a pivotal program in the second quarter of 2023.

•

ADI-925: Our pipeline also includes ADI-925, a novel engineered CAd gamma delta T cell product candidate targeting tumor stress ligands. We expect to file an IND application for ADI-925 in the second half of 2023.

•

Additional Preclinical Programs (CAR, CAd and other technologies): Our pipeline also includes additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs in discovery and preclinical development for both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. We expect to continue to develop product candidates in oncology based on our gamma delta T cell platform using either previously validated antigens or those that we identify and target using CAR, CAd or other technologies.

•

ADI-002: ADI-002 is a gamma delta CAR T-cell therapy product candidate expressing a GPC3-targeted CAR and a cell intrinsic soluble form of interleukin-15 (IL-15), for the treatment of solid tumors. In January 2022, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) exercised its option to license the exclusive, worldwide rights to ADI-002. Regeneron is responsible, at its sole cost, for all development, manufacturing and commercialization of ADI-002.

Our objective is to be the leading biotechnology company developing allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapies for oncology. Key elements of our strategy include our plans to:

•

Continue to advance clinical development of ADI-001. ADI-001, our lead hematologic cancer product candidate, is currently in an ongoing Phase 1 study for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL. CD20 is a well validated target for immunotherapy for NHL. Our goal is to capitalize on our leadership in engineered allogeneic anti-CD20 gamma delta CAR T-cell therapy and pursue a broad clinical development plan for multiple subtypes of NHL.

•

Continue to innovate and invest in the gamma delta T cell platform and pipeline. We expect to continue to develop product candidates in oncology based on the gamma delta T cell platform using either previously validated antigens or those that we identify and target. We also expect to continue to develop product candidates in oncology based on our allogeneic gamma delta T cell platform using CAR, CAd or other technologies. We may utilize genetic engineering, editing technologies or other technologies with the goal of further improving the activity and tolerability profile of our product candidates. A key strength of our gamma delta T cell therapy platform lies in our ability to target antigens of both known and unknown potential and devote our clinical development resources to those antigens that show the most promise in preclinical in vivo analyses and early human trials.

•

Exploit the potential for outpatient administration. While we expect that the initial subjects receiving our allogeneic gamma delta T cell-based therapies in clinical studies will be hospitalized for a minimum of 24-hours for observation after infusion, a favorable tolerability profile may allow administration of such investigational therapies in an outpatient setting. We believe this would represent a significant competitive advantage for our gamma delta T cell-based therapies as compared to existing approved CAR T-cell therapy or other therapies.

•

Expand and protect our intellectual property. We will continue to aggressively protect the allogeneic gamma delta T cell production methodology we have developed as well as specific product candidates based on proprietary antigen-binding domains. For more information on our intellectual property, see “Business—Our Intellectual Property” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In recent years, the field of immuno-oncology has advanced numerous therapies for the treatment of cancer. Immuno-oncology deploys the immune system to attack and, in some cases, to eliminate cancer. One of the key breakthroughs in immuno-oncology involved using T cells, a key element of the immune system, and turning them into even more potent, tumor-cell-specific killers. Researchers have achieved this improvement and targeting by loading the T cells with a gene encoding a CAR. These engineered receptors represent a powerful combination of, first, a region that binds to a target on a cancer cell and tethers the T cell to it; and second, a signal that activates the T cell to eliminate the tethered cancer cell. To our knowledge, all marketed CAR T cells contain predominantly alpha beta T cells. While we believe the use of CAR T-cell therapies is promising, conventional CAR T-cell therapies also have some key flaws that, we believe, can potentially be addressed by using a cell population, specifically, gamma delta T cells rather than alpha beta T cells.

As of December 31, 2022, four CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapies have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta®) and brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus™) developed by Kite Pharma, now Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead); tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®), developed by Novartis; and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi®) developed by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (now Bristol Myers Squibb Company). Among the 111 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with Yescarta® in a clinical trial, an objective response rate of 82% was observed with 54% of patients achieving a complete response. This high efficacy, however, is associated with significant adverse events, with 13% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 28% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher neurologic events. In the Yescarta® DLBCL clinical trial, three patients died due to adverse events during treatment and ten patients who were enrolled in the trial were not able to be treated due to disease progression or complications that arose during the period of time required to generate the patient-specific therapy or because of the inability to generate the desired CAR T cells from the patient’s cells. In 2022, both Yescarta and Breyanzi were approved by the FDA for treating a subset of adult patients with LBCL in the second-line, representing a line-expansion from the earlier third-line approvals and an expansion of the share of LBCL patients eligible for autologous cell therapy. We believe that, despite their progress to date, currently available CAR T-cell therapies have not reached their full promise, and our allogeneic gamma delta CAR T-cell approach has the potential to be a significant improvement.

The current generation of approved CAR T-cell therapies for B-cell lymphomas represented by Yescarta®, Tecartus™, Breyanzi®, and Kymriah® are autologous cell therapies, that is, they are based on immune cells isolated from a patient, modified and expanded in a laboratory and then reintroduced into the same patient. One key reason for taking this autologous approach is that the cytotoxic, or, cell-killing, cells are predominantly alpha beta T cells that are used to generate these therapies and are cells that the immune system uses to recognize and attack foreign cells. If these types of T cells were to be introduced into a patient from an unrelated donor, the donor T cells would attack healthy tissues throughout the patient in a process known as graft versus host disease (GvHD) potentially causing multiple organ failure and death.

The T cells used for first-generation CAR T-cell therapies were derived from a highly abundant subclass of T cells known as alpha beta T cells. Alpha beta T cells, which comprise approximately 95% of the T cells in circulation in the body, are able to distinguish whether cells that they encounter are either normal cells that belong in the body or foreign or damaged cells that need to be destroyed. Alpha beta T cells have naturally occurring T cell receptors (TCRs) which is made up of alpha and beta protein chains. These TCRs recognize targets, also known as antigens, on cells that are presented by antigen-presenting molecules encoded by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The MHC contains genes that encode a number of proteins with multiple variants, such that most individuals have a distinct MHC profile. During normal T cell development, those T cells that recognize the combination of the specific MHC profile and antigens that are presented by healthy cells of the specific individual are eliminated, resulting in a population of T cells that circulate throughout the body, vigilantly checking for abnormal antigens or foreign cells, including from another individual.

In one type of cellular immunotherapy known as adoptive cell therapy, naturally occurring immune cells from a patient are isolated and are activated using cytokines and tumor-specific antigens to stimulate the growth and expansion of antitumor T cells that already exist at low abundance in the patient. After activation and expansion in the laboratory, large numbers of T cells that are primed to recognize the tumor are reintroduced into the same patient.

CAR T-cell therapies are a variant of this adoptive cell therapy in which, instead of trying to activate T cells based on the ability of TCRs to recognize tumor antigens, a CAR designed to recognize a specific tumor antigen is genetically introduced into T cells. These CAR T cells are then able to destroy any cells expressing the appropriate antigen completely independent of MHC. However, without further genetic engineering, CAR T cells derived from alpha beta T cells still have endogenous TCRs which restrict their use to the original patient.

Autologous cell therapies, such as those developed by Kite Pharma and Novartis, have a number of limitations, including but not limited to the following:

•

Treatment delays imposed by individualized manufacturing. Due to the individualized manufacturing process, patients must wait up to three to four weeks for the individualized products to be manufactured and administered. In the registrational trials for Yescarta® and Kymriah®, up to 31% of intended patients ultimately did not receive treatment primarily due to complications from the underlying disease that occurred during manufacturing or due to manufacturing failures.

•

Manufacturing variability and failure. It was reported by Novartis in 2018 that variability in product specifications had been observed in the production of Kymriah®. In addition, in approximately 9% of the cases, no product could be shipped to patients at all due to out-of-specification issues or from manufacturing failures.

•

High cost limits patient access. The high cost of therapy and payer policies can limit access to autologous CAR T-cell therapies. According to a 2019 article published in the journal Managed Care, treating physicians estimate that the costs of autologous CAR T-cell therapies combined with patient care services are approximately $1 million per patient, generating reluctance of payers to approve these therapies for patients before they have exhausted other options. These therapies are then relegated to the most heavily pretreated patients who may be unable to withstand the severe side effects.

•

Scalability. Because each patient requires a custom manufacturing batch, the production of autologous CAR T cells at the scale needed to meet commercial demand and anticipated label and geographic expansions may be challenging.

Autologous cell therapies, such as CAR T cells derived from alpha beta T cells, have been successful in their initial use in hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they have provided critical data that demonstrates the potential of immunocellular cancer therapies. However, manufacturing of these cells imposes some critical limitations that could be minimized if similar allogeneic cell therapies that can be given to any patient, regardless of the donor of cells, are developed. We believe that

allogeneic cell therapies offer great promise for optimizing the access to therapy, overcoming manufacturing-related and cost-related limitations of autologous cell therapies.

Immunotherapies developed using gamma delta T cells have a number of potential or anticipated advantages over other therapies developed using other cell types, including the following:

•

Lack of GvHD. A body of published evidence, mainly in the field of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), supports the safety profile of transfer of allogeneic gamma delta T cells to patient recipients from unrelated donors. HSCT procedures containing significant numbers of gamma delta T cells were able to proceed with no signs of acute or chronic GvHD. In many cases, the presence of gamma delta T cells in the HSCT products correlated with improved clinical outcomes, indicating the antitumor potential of gamma delta T cells. Additionally, a study performed by Martin Wilhelm and colleagues in 2014 indicated that gamma delta T cells from haploidentical donors could be successfully expanded and infused in large numbers (2.17x106 cells / kg (range, 0.9-3.84)), followed by further expansion (mean, 68-fold) in the patients without any observed GvHD.

•

MHC-independent tumor antigen recognition. Gamma delta TCR can recognize tumor associated antigens in a MHC-independent manner, facilitating the use of products derived from donors who are unrelated to patients which may avoid the need to match the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-type of the donor to the patient.

•

Tumor localization. In addition to being present in the circulation at low frequency, gamma delta T cells have an inherent propensity to home to tissues and tumors. Their ability to be activated in environments with low levels of oxygen such as those found in the tumor microenvironment has the potential to increase the activity of gamma delta T cells in solid tumors.

•

Limited cytokine secretion. Unlike alpha beta T cells, gamma delta T cells can be made to secrete lower levels of certain cytokines such as interleukin 6 (IL-6). This, combined with lack of recognition of normal, non-malignant, cells by of gamma delta T cells, may lower the risk of life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.

•

Limited ability for tumors to escape. Although the initial responses to immunotherapies such as antibodies and CAR T cells are often impressive, many patients become refractory or relapse. A common mechanism for the relapse to these therapies is loss of the expression of the CAR-targeted antigen such as CD19 from tumor cells. Because gamma delta T cells also express innate cytotoxic immune receptors, they can recognize and kill tumor cells even in the absence of the CAR-targeted tumor antigen.

•

Ability to manufacture more efficiently and cost-effectively. Unlike alpha beta T cells, therapies based on gamma delta T cells can potentially be manufactured in bulk and used in the allogeneic or "off-the-shelf" setting, addressing many of the shortcomings of conventional alpha beta T cell therapy.

•

Potential for superior cytotoxic activity. T cells from some cancer patients, for example those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, often display an exhausted, or otherwise dysfunctional, phenotype and CAR T-cell products from these cells may perform poorly. Our allogeneic cell therapy is manufactured from unrelated donors whose T cells have been proven to generate highly active CAR T-cell product.

•

Potential for re-dosing. Along with increased availability of material due to the ability to utilize "off-the-shelf" donor-derived starting material from unrelated donors compared to conventional CAR T-cell therapies, the lack of MHC-dependent GvHD also opens up the possibility of being able to re-dose patients to achieve further clinical activity if they do not obtain an adequate clinical response from initial treatment or if they relapse. A number of studies with other CAR T-cell therapies have linked the development of cytokine release syndrome with high numbers of circulating CAR T cells following rapid alpha beta T cell proliferation. Having the option to retreat patients with gamma delta T cells provides the option of starting with a low dose and re-dosing if required.

Human gamma delta T cells can be divided into three main subsets based on their TCR delta chain usage: Vδ1, Vδ2 and Vδ3. The most abundant subset of gamma delta T cells in the circulatory system, the Vδ2 cells, is also the most well-studied. However, it is the Vδ1 subset which primarily resides in tissues and presents a favorable cytotoxic anti-tumor profile that we are activating and manufacturing using our proprietary platform technology.

Vδ1 cells have properties of both the innate and adaptive immune system, meaning that they can be activated by tumor-specific antigens as well as by general activators common to damaged or otherwise abnormal cells. Similar to other T cells, they express TCRs, but also express cytotoxicity receptors that are found on innate immune cells such as natural killer (NK) cells. These gamma delta T cells can induce tumor cell death through multiple mechanisms including the secretion of cytotoxic proteins such as granzymes and perforin as well as through the secretion of cytokines such as interferon gamma (IFNγ), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα).

In in vitro and in vivo preclinical cancer models, Vδ1 cells are more cytotoxic and may have a longer durability than Vδ2 cells. Vδ1 cells are also more resistant to activation induced cell death (AICD), which has posed significant problems in clinical trials following chronic stimulation of Vδ2 cells. Vδ1 cells normally reside within tissues and they are able to adapt to lower nutrient availability and decreased oxygen levels, conditions which are similar to those in the microenvironments or localized areas associated with certain solid tumors. Incubation of these gamma delta T cells in conditions of low oxygen (hypoxia) that are typical of tumors has been shown to enhance their cytotoxicity.

An alternate approach to the development of allogeneic CAR T cells consists of engineered NK cell-based therapy. While both gamma delta T cell and NK cell therapy generally are not expected to cause GvHD, NK cells express a broad repertoire of both inhibitory and activating receptors and have more limited tumor induced secretion of multiple cytokines. We believe that the gamma delta T cell technology we are developing has several advantages over this approach. Unlike engineered NK cells, Vδ1 gamma delta T cells have the following advantages:

•

Display features of adaptive immunity including, TCR-mediated, but MHC-independent, tumor antigen recognition, a long lifespan and persistence for protracted periods of time.

We believe these advantages position gamma delta T cell-based therapies to become an attractive alternative to NK based therapies for many oncology indications and lines of therapy.

Anticipated Advantages of Vδ1 Gamma Delta T Cells Over Other Approaches to Generate Allogeneic CAR T Cells

An alternative approach to the development of allogeneic gamma delta CAR T cells consists of introducing genetic modifications that disable the TCR in alpha beta T cells derived from donors that are unrelated to the patient. This process prevents these cells from attacking the patient’s healthy cells. We believe that the unrelated donor-derived gamma delta T cell technology, which lacks the ability to attack healthy cells from unrelated individuals, has a number of advantages over this approach. In an allogeneic paradigm, unlike alpha beta T cells, Vδ1 gamma delta T cells have the following advantages:

•

Display properties of both adaptive and innate immune systems and are capable of killing cells even if their specifically targeted CAR antigen is expressed at low levels or not present;

We believe these advantages position gamma delta T cell based therapies to become an attractive alternative to alpha beta T cell based therapies.

Anticipated Advantages of Vδ1 Gamma Delta T Cells Over Bispecific Antibody T Cell Recruitment for Tumor Immunotherapy

An alternative approach to the development of allogeneic CAR T cells consists of bispecific antibodies that are designed to crosslink T cells to specific targets on the tumor. This approach generally requires healthy and functional T cells able to attack

the tumor when guided to the tumor expressing the target antigen. We believe that the unrelated donor-derived gamma delta T cell technology has a number of potential advantages over this approach. Unlike bispecific antibodies, Vδ1 gamma delta T cells have the following advantages:

We believe these advantages position gamma delta T cell-based therapies to become an attractive alternative to bispecific-based therapies for many oncology indications and lines of therapy.

We believe that the gamma delta T cell technology that we are developing has a number of potential advantages over the technology of gamma delta T cell competitor companies, including the following:

We believe these advantages position our gamma delta T cell based therapies to become an attractive approach to the technologies used by other gamma delta T cell competitor companies.

To produce gamma delta T cell-based product candidates, we isolate peripheral blood mononuclear cells, from unrelated donors that meet all the safety criteria for human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/P), criteria for donors as outlined by the FDA in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1271. We then activate Vδ1 gamma delta T cells using a proprietary agonistic antibody and cytokines which expands these cells before transduction with replication-incompetent retroviral vectors containing the coding sequence for CAR or CAd constructs. These CAR or CAd-modified cells are further expanded at significant orders of magnitude, routinely greater than 6,000-fold at clinical scale, resulting in cell cultures that primarily consist of the desired gamma delta T cells. To reduce the chance of a patient developing GvHD, the remaining alpha beta T cells are then depleted using alpha-beta-specific, antibody-based techniques. The resulting gamma delta T cells are then formulated in an infusible solution to form the final drug product, which is filled into vials and

then frozen to enable delivery of a post-thaw cell dose of CAR or CAd-T cells. A schematic of our large-scale manufacturing process is summarized in the diagram below.

NHL is the most common cancer of the lymphatic system. According to the cancer.net website maintained by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), approximately 90% of NHL patients in western countries have B-cell lymphomas of various types and DLBCL is the most common and aggressive type of NHL, accounting for 30% of NHL. The second most common type is follicular lymphoma (FL), which occurs in 20% of NHL patients. Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), is diagnosed in 5% to 7% of NHL cases.

Although B-cell NHLs represent a heterogeneous set of lymphomas, many cell surface antigens are shared among them, including CD19 and CD20. First line therapy for patients with aggressive B-cell NHLs, such as DLBCL, is chemotherapy in combination with radiation or rituximab, an antibody that targets CD20. According to the rituximab label as published on the FDA website, the addition of rituximab to chemotherapy results in an approximately 10% to 15% overall increase in survival at one year compared to chemotherapy alone with almost no increase in toxicity. According to an article published by K.T. Godder et al. in the journal Bone Marrow Transplantation in 2007, up to 50% of patients become refractory or relapse after treatment. Of those, according to an article published by Andrew R. Rezvani and David G. Maloney in the journal Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology in 2011, approximately 60% percent are resistant to rituximab upon relapse. Subsequent chemotherapy-based therapies typically have limited efficacy in these patients and, at that point, they become candidates for treatment with allogeneic HSCT or anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Approximately 35% of patients treated with anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies relapse within one year, according to the label for Kymriah® published on the Novartis website. Further, approximately one-third of patients progressing on autologous CD19 CAR T therapy show loss of CD19 expression, making targeting alternative antigens a promising therapeutic approach.

ADI-001 is our gamma delta CAR T-cell product candidate that targets malignant B-cells via an anti-CD20 CAR and via the gamma delta T cell endogenous receptors, which we are developing as an allogeneic immunocellular therapy for the treatment of B-cell NHL. ADI-001 is created from Vδ1 gamma delta T cells isolated from unrelated donors. It is manufactured in bulk under current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) -compliant conditions and is intended to be supplied as an immediately available "off-the-shelf" anti-CD20 CAR T-cell therapy.

ADI-001 contains an anti-CD20 CAR that has a proprietary antigen-binding domain that recognizes a region of CD20 distinct from that recognized by rituximab. Similar to other CAR-Ts cells including the one used to create Kymriah®, our CAR T cells contain the clinically validated costimulatory domain from 4-1BB and the CD3ζ.

In October 2020, the FDA cleared our IND application for ADI-001 for the treatment of NHL. The active IND enabled us to initiate the first-in-human clinical trial to assess safety and efficacy of ADI-001 in NHL patients in the first quarter of 2021. The ongoing Phase 1 study for ADI-001 will enroll up to 80 late-stage NHL patients at a number of cancer centers across the United States. The study includes a dose finding portion followed by dose expansion cohorts to explore the activity of ADI-001 in multiple subtypes of NHL. Included in this trial will be previously treated patients who were not able to receive approved autologous CAR T-cell therapies due to medical, technical, logistical, or financial reasons, as well as patients who relapsed after receiving autologous CAR T-cell therapies.

Patients enrolled in the trial will undergo chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion for three days followed by ADI-001 dosing by infusion on day five. Patients will be evaluated at four weeks, 12 weeks and then every three months for the first year and at months 18 and 24 after treatment. Once a recommended dose has been selected, up to 36 patients will be enrolled in indication-specific dose expansion cohorts: DLBCL, MCL, and one for all other B-cell malignancies. Select patients experiencing clinical benefit with ADI-001 may be eligible for retreatment. Refer to Figure 3. for the Phase 1 ADI-001 study patient flow.

Enrollment in the Phase 1 clinical study of ADI-001 is currently ongoing to provide additional durability data and further support the recommended Phase 2 dose. See “Results from Ongoing ADI-001 Phase 1 Trial” for information regarding recent interim results.

On December 10, 2022, we announced interim results from the ongoing Phase 1 study of ADI-001 in relapsed or refractory NHL. Data highlights from the study are summarized below.

•

Of the 16 evaluable patients, three received ADI-001 at dose level 1 (30 million CAR+ cells), three received ADI-001 at dose level 2 (DL2) (100 million CAR+ cells), three received ADI-001 at dose level 3 (300 million CAR+ cells), one received two infusions of ADI-001 at dose level 3 (DL3) (2X 300 million CAR+ cells on day one and seven following a single lymphodepletion), and six received ADI-001 at dose level 4 (DL4) (1 billion CAR+ cells).

•

On an exploratory basis, primarily to understand safety and pharmacokinetics of a second ADI-001 dose, the first and second patient in DL3 while testing negative for MRD and in complete response (CR), received a second DL3 dose, three and two months after the first infusion, respectively.

•

Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of four prior therapies (range two-six) and had a poor prognostic outlook based on their median International Prognostic Index (IPI) score.

•

In five LBCL patients that relapsed after prior autologous anti-CD19 CAR T therapy, treatment with ADI-001 demonstrated 100% ORR and CR rate (5/5). These patients included a triple-hit high-grade B-cell lymphoma patient, three diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients, and a double-hit high-grade B-cell lymphoma patient. Among two patients, who had a best response of PR to autologous CAR T, treatment with ADI-001 resulted in CR in both patients.

•

ADI-001 has been generally well-tolerated in the study to date. There were no occurrences of dose-limiting toxicities, GvHD, or Grade 3 or higher Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) reported.

+Safety assessment was performed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (v5) and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy criteria.

Figure 4: Summary of Phase 1 ADI-001 Preliminary Safety Data in Efficacy-Evaluable Patients as of the December 5, 2022 data-cut date:+

ADI-925, an engineered CAd γδ1 T cell product candidate targeting stress ligands expressed on malignant cells

Our lead preclinical program, ADI-925, introduces a novel type of gamma-delta T cell engineering developed at Adicet referred to as CAd. We believe ADI-925 enhances targeting of tumor stress antigens like MICA, MICB and ULBP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 using naturally present innate and adaptive tumor surveillance mechanisms, with significantly enhanced anti-tumor function.

Native innate receptors, like NKG2D, recognize stress antigens that are naturally used for the purposes of tumor surveillance. Recognition of these stress antigens and subsequent tumor targeting is conveyed to the gamma delta T cell via a signaling adapter known as DAP10. We believe this drives the natural innate pathway not only in gamma delta T cells, but also in other innate effector cells. Our CAd, modifies multiple functions within the DAP10 molecule to redirect that signal and amplify it down the same clinically validated engineered pathways that are found in our CARs. We believe that this allows us, without any additional extracellular modifications, to design CAds that boost the natural targeting of receptors already found on the gamma delta T cell and to significantly enhance the level of tumor killing achieved through the innate and adaptive activation pathways. A schematic is summarized in Figure 5 below. We expect to submit an IND for ADI-925 in the second half of 2023.

Our pipeline also includes additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs in discovery and preclinical development for both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. These pipeline programs were selected by integrating aspects of gamma delta one tissue homing, differentiated mechanisms of action, targeting enhancement and engineered armoring. We believe that the combination of our gamma delta T cells engineered with CAR, CAds or other technology provides the basis for a new generation of gamma delta T cell therapies that have the potential to transform the treatment of solid tumors.

On January 28, 2022, Regeneron exercised its option to license the exclusive, worldwide rights to ADI-002, an anti-GPC3 allogeneic CAR gamma delta T cell product candidate, pursuant to our agreement signed in 2016. In conjunction with the exercise of its option, Regeneron paid us an exercise fee of $20.0 million. We elected not to exercise our option to co-fund the further development of ADI-002. Accordingly, Regeneron is responsible, at its sole cost, for all development, manufacturing

and commercialization of ADI-002 and we are entitled to royalties of any future sales of such products by Regeneron. See Note 7. Third Party Agreements to our consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We have entered into multiple strategic agreements and collaborations, including our License and Collaboration Agreement with Regeneron as well as our Antibody Discovery Agreement with Twist Bioscience Corporation. We have also entered into amendments to these original agreements. For additional information regarding our significant agreements, refer to Note 8. Third Party Agreements to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our gamma delta T cell-based product candidates and substantially all of our intellectual property have been developed by us, with certain antigen binding domains derived from our collaboration with Regeneron. Additional intellectual portfolio assets were acquired in 2016 via acquisition of Applied Immune Technologies Ltd. (AIT), which is now our wholly owned subsidiary, Adicet Bio Israel, Ltd. We strive to protect and enhance proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially material to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending our patent rights.

Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing United States and foreign patents and applications related to our technology, inventions, and improvements that are material to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, confidentiality agreements, and invention assignment agreements to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Our patent portfolio includes composition of matter, method of treatment and manufacturing process protection for our lead product candidates, ADI-001 and ADI-925, as well as for our partnered program ADI-002 and several additional research-stage candidates. As of March 10, 2023, there are multiple patent families comprising four pending United States non-provisional applications and over 50 corresponding foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions as Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Singapore and South Africa with claims directed to particular reagents and related protocols for gamma delta T cell expansion and resulting gamma delta T cell compositions of matter, including engineered gamma delta CAR T cells which, if issued, are expected to expire between 2035 and 2038. The first U.S. non-provisional application in our original patent family was granted as U.S. Patent No. 11,135,245, expiring on May 19, 2038, and the first U.S. non-provisional application in our second patent family was granted as U.S. Patent No. 11,299,708, expiring on December 26, 2037. Additional U.S. non-provisional applications are pending in both of these patent families.

For our ADI-001 program in particular, there is one patent family comprising one U.S. non-provisional application and over a dozen corresponding foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions as Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore and South Africa, with claims directed to CAR constructs and antigen binding domains relating to ADI-001, as well as their methods of use for certain indications, preconditioning methods, and dosing regimens, which, if issued, would expire in 2039. Additionally, we have one pending international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application directed to certain methods of treatment using ADI-001, where applications claiming the benefit of this PCT application would expire in 2042 if issued in due course. With respect to our ADI-925 program in particular, we have one pending international PCT application and one pending U.S. provisional application with claims directed to our CAd constructs, variations thereof, and their methods of use for certain indications, where applications claiming the benefit of these applications would expire between 2042 and 2043 if issued in due course.

For our research-stage programs, we have three pending U.S. provisional patent applications focusing on CD70, prospect specific member antigen and B7-H6, respectively, where applications claiming the benefit of these provisional applications would expire in 2043 assuming they are converted, prosecuted and issued in due course. There are also multiple granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States and internationally directed to our TCRL platform technology expiring between 2023 and 2037, including three pending patent families directed to certain carcinoma, melanoma and glioblastoma targets expiring between 2036 and 2037.

For our ADI-002 program, partnered with Regeneron, there is one patent family comprising one U.S. non-provisional application and over a dozen corresponding foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions as Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore and South Africa, with claims directed to CAR constructs and antigen binding domains relating to ADI-002, as well as their methods of use for certain indications, preconditioning methods, and dosing regimens, which, if issued, would expire in 2039. We also have one pending international PCT application directed to certain proprietary antibodies to GPC3 and methods of use thereof, where applications claiming the benefit of this PCT application would expire in 2042 if issued in due course.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In the U.S., patent term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee

for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. In the U.S., the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term extension of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term extension involves a complex calculation based on the length of time it takes for regulatory review. A patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, as well as novel discoveries, core technologies, and know-how, as well as our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights.

The patent positions of companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific, and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents or will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of using and manufacturing the same. We also cannot predict whether the patent applications it is currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold, or control may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. In addition, while we have confidence in our agreements and security measures, either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies. Further, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or independently discovered by competitors.

We have licensed various intellectual property and trade secrets to third parties for purposes of collaboration, product development and research and development.

We are developing and enabling scalable and proprietary cGMP-compliant manufacturing processes. We have invested resources to optimize our manufacturing process and plan to maintain that investment to continuously improve our production and supply chain capabilities over time.

We manufacture cell-based immunotherapy products based on gamma delta T cells obtained from the blood of donors who are unrelated to the patients that will be treated. These products are classed as allogeneic cell therapy products. Donor-derived blood product is fractionated and the fraction containing gamma delta T cells is frozen prior to use in future manufacturing campaigns. We believe that our freezing and storing of the donor blood products allows us to efficiently schedule subsequent manufacturing steps. After obtaining blood products from unrelated donors the manufacturing process begins with the activation of a subpopulation of gamma delta T cells, referred to as Vd1 T-cells, using an antibody that is proprietary to us. This antibody, in combination with other factors including the cytokine, IL-2, induces gamma delta T cells to proliferate, whereupon we expose the cells to a viral vector that transfers a gene sequence encoding a CAR or CAd, or other gene sequences, to the proliferating cells. This step is referred to as the transduction step. Following the transduction step gamma delta T cells are induced to proliferate further with IL-2 before an enrichment step that increases the proportion of gamma delta T cells, removes unwanted residual alpha beta T cells and results in the CAR or CAd-modified gamma delta T cell drug product. CAR or CAd-modified gamma delta T cell products are then frozen in single-use vials for long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures. These storage conditions are designed to ensure stability of the cell-based drug products for protracted periods of time. The storage in singe use vials is designed to simplify the handling and treatment administration. Just prior to administration of treatment, the vials will be thawed and then the contents infused into the patient. We believe that the single manufacturing process we are developing will be able to be completed in approximately two weeks and will result in sufficient quantities of drug product to treat numerous patients.

To date, we currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and any products that we may develop. We have chosen to partner with a number of contract drug manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) in the United States and Europe to access specific capabilities to ensure that the manufacturing process is highly scalable, and fully cGMP compliant. This strategy allows us to maintain a more flexible infrastructure while focusing our expertise on developing our products. In addition to the quality management systems utilized by strategic manufacturing partners, we have established a quality control and quality assurance program, which includes a set of standard operating procedures and specifications designed to ensure that our products are manufactured in accordance with cGMPs, and other applicable domestic and foreign regulations.

For example, we currently engage multiple third-party manufacturers for both viral vector and drug product across our pipeline. We also will have internal GMP cell processing and vector manufacturing operations at our 1000 Bridge Parkway, Redwood City, CA facility (1000 Bridge Parkway) for the production of drug products intended for Phase 1/2 clinical trials.

We also utilize separate third-party contractors to manufacture cGMP-compliant starting and critical materials that are used for the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as donor blood products, gamma delta T cell activating antibody and viral vectors that are used to deliver the applicable CAR or CAd gene into the T cells. We believe all materials and components utilized in the production of the activating antibody producing cell line, viral vector and final gamma delta T cell product are available from qualified suppliers and suitable for pivotal process development in readiness for registration and commercialization. Going forward, we intend to continue to expand our manufacturing capability through agreements with leading cell therapy and viral vector CDMOs.

If there is a setback or delay with third-party manufacturing, or our own internal cell or vector manufacturing, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we would likely incur some delay in identifying and qualifying such replacements. We plan to continue to create a robust supply chain with redundant sources of supply comprised of both internal and external infrastructure.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including existing and novel therapies developed by biopharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, in addition to standard of care treatments.

Novartis and Kite Pharma (now Gilead) were the first to achieve FDA approval for autologous T cell therapies. In August 2017, Novartis obtained FDA approval to commercialize Kymriah®, for the treatment of children and young adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory or has relapsed at least twice. In May 2018, Kymriah® received FDA approval for adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma. In October 2017, Kite Pharma obtained FDA approval to commercialize Yescarta®, the first CAR T-cell product candidate for the treatment of adult patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma. In July 2020, Gilead obtained FDA approval to commercialize Tecartus™, the first CAR T-cell product candidate for the treatment of adult patients with R/R MCL. In February 2021, Bristol Myers Squibb obtained FDA approval to commercialize Breyanzi® for the treatment of adults with R/R large B-cell lymphoma. In 2022, both Yescarta and Breyanzi were approved by the FDA for treating a subset of adult patients with LBCL in the second line, representing a line-expansion from the earlier third-line approvals.

Due to the promising therapeutic effect of T cell therapies in clinical trials, we anticipate increasing competition from existing and new companies developing these therapies, as well as in the development of allogeneic T cell therapies generally. Potential T cell therapy competitors include, but are not limited to:

•

Allogeneic T-cell therapy competition: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Century Therapeutics, Inc., Cellectis, S.A., Celyad S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Fate Therapeutics Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc., Precision Biosciences, Inc., Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH, Takeda, TC BioPharm Limited, Incysus Therapeutics, Inc. and Gadeta BV.

•

Autologous T-cell therapy competition: Adaptimmune Therapeutics PLC, Autolus Therapeutics plc, bluebird bio, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., Mustang Bio, Inc., Novartis International AG, TCR² Therapeutics Inc. and Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc.

Although we believe our development of proprietary processes for engineering and manufacturing gamma delta T cells expressing CARs is unique due to what we believe is the enormous potential of these cells, it is likely that additional competition may arise from existing companies currently focusing on development of alpha beta or gamma delta T cell therapies, or from new entrants in the field.

Competition may also arise from non-cell based immune oncology platforms. For instance, we may experience competition from companies, such as Amgen Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline plc, MacroGenics, Inc., Merus N.V., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Xencor Inc., that are pursuing bispecific antibodies, which target both the cancer antigen and T cell receptor, thus bringing both cancer cells and T cells in close proximity to maximize the likelihood of an immune response to the cancer cells. Additionally, companies, such as Amgen Inc., AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, GlaxoSmithKline plc, ImmunoGen, Inc., Immunomedics, Inc., and Seattle Genetics, Inc., are pursuing antibody drug conjugates, which utilize the targeting ability of antibodies to deliver cell-killing agents directly to cancer cells.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we do. Future collaborations and mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors.

Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our own products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience, price, reimbursement and cost of manufacturing.

These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, and investor capital, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our cell products will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a BLA to the FDA for marketing authorization. Our products are considered more than minimally manipulated and will require evaluation in clinical trials and the submission and approval of a BLA before we can market them. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating our quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state, and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the U.S., the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA), the Public Health Service Act (the PHSA), and their implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•

completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and key animal studies according to good laboratory practices (GLPs), and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices (GCPs) and any additional requirements for the protection of human research patients and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for our intended use;

•

submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application (BLA) for marketing approval that includes substantial evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practices (cGTPs) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;

Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the key preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and requests additional information and or places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to patients under the supervision of qualified investigators at independent clinical sites/hospitals, physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research patients provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial 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 studies and clinical study results to public registries.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. A clinical trial outside the United States may also be conducted under the authorization of similar regulatory authorities of the country/region. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

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

•

Phase 1. The biological product is typically introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. However, in the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer or the hematological malignancies that

we aspire to treat, initial human testing is routinely conducted directly in ill patients with the approval of relevant ethics committee(s) under the supervision of a licensed physician.

•

Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.

•

Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk to benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. In case of an accelerated BLA approval based on limited clinical data, FDA may mandate a Phase 4 clinical trial prior to full approval. During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within 7 calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product according to the requirements of the phase of clinical development. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Further, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will be required to develop and implement additional clinical study policies and procedures designed to help protect study participants from the COVID-19 virus, which may include using telemedicine visits and remote monitoring of patients and clinical sites. We will also need to ensure data from our clinical studies that may be disrupted as a result of the pandemic is collected pursuant to the study protocol and is consistent with GCPs, with any material protocol deviation reviewed and approved by the site IRB. Patients who may miss scheduled appointments, any interruption in study drug supply, or other consequence that may result in incomplete data being generated during a study as a result of the pandemic must be adequately documented and justified. For example, on March 18, 2020, the FDA issued a guidance on conducting clinical trials during the pandemic, which describes a number of considerations for sponsors of clinical trials impacted by the pandemic, including the requirement to include in the clinical study report (or as a separate document) contingency measures implemented to manage the study, and any disruption of the study as a result of COVID-19; a list of all study participants affected by COVID-19-related study disruption by unique subject identifier and by investigational site, and a description of how the individual’s participation was altered; and analyses and corresponding discussions that address the impact of implemented contingency measures (e.g., participant discontinuation from investigational product and/or study, alternative procedures used to collect critical safety and/or efficacy data) on the safety and efficacy results reported for the study. The FDA has continued to update and revise its guidance for ongoing clinical trials throughout the COVID-19 public health emergency.

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA submission must include results of product safety, efficacy, development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no

assurance or guarantee that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 or 74 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months from the filing date to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. 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. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required. Both Kymriah® and Yescarta® were approved with a REMS.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For cellular immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with cGTPs, to the extent applicable. These are FDA regulations and guidance documents that in part govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissue, and HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the cGTPs is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, cGTPs and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed

to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP), within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease 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, including a full BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. 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.

FDA provides programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new products that are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as fast track designation, priority review designation, accelerated approval, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation, and breakthrough therapy designation. Additionally, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), sponsors of designated platform technologies may receive expedited development and review of any subsequent application for a drug or biologic that uses or incorporates the platform technology.

The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, 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 product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive 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 or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies and, under FDORA, the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

RMAT designation was established by the FDA in 2017 to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any drug that meets the following criteria: (1) it 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; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug 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 FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products 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. Once approved, when appropriate, the FDA can permit fulfillment of post-approval requirements under accelerated approval through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory datasets; or through post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with the therapy prior to approval.

Breakthrough therapy designation is also intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening conditions. The designation by FDA requires preliminary clinical evidence that a product candidate, alone or in combination with other drugs and biologics, demonstrates substantial improvement over currently available therapy on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.

Fast Track designation, priority review, RMAT and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or regulatory approval process for our products.

Additionally, under FDORA, a platform technology incorporated within or utilized by a biological product is eligible for designation as a designated platform technology if (1) the platform technology is incorporated in, or utilized by, a biological product approved under a BLA; (2) preliminary evidence submitted by the sponsor of the licensed biological product, or a sponsor that has been granted a right of reference to data submitted in the application for such biological product, demonstrates that the platform technology has the potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one biological product without an adverse effect on quality, manufacturing, or safety; and (3) data or information submitted by the applicable person indicates that incorporation or utilization of the platform technology has a reasonable likelihood to bring significant efficiencies to the biological product development or manufacturing process and to the review process. A sponsor may request the FDA to designate a platform technology as a designated platform technology concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND application for a biological product that incorporates or utilizes the platform technology that is the subject of the request. If so designated, the FDA may expedite the development and review of any subsequent original BLA for a biological product that uses or incorporates the platform technology. Designated platform technology status does not ensure that a biological product will be developed more quickly or receive FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may revoke a designation if the FDA determines that a designated platform technology no longer meets the criteria for such designation.

Any products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for

uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as off-label use), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although a physician may prescribe a legally available product for an off-label use, if the physician deems such product to be appropriate in his/her professional medical judgment, a manufacturer may not market or promote off-label uses. However, it is permissible to share in certain circumstances truthful and not misleading information that is consistent with the product’s approved labeling.

Further, additional FDA limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing. 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 may also require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS, or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the adequate stability of the product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. Under FDORA, sponsors of approved drugs and biologics must provide 6 months’ notice to the FDA of any changes in marketing status, such as the withdrawal of a product, and failure to do so could result in the FDA placing the product on a list of discontinued products, which would revoke the product’s ability to be marketed. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to produce clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. This 12-year period of data exclusivity may be extended by six months, for a total of 12.5 years, if the FDA requests that the innovator company conduct pediatric clinical investigations of the product.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our United States patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years, as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application.

Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

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

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and individual United States Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments). For example, our business practices, including any of our research and future sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may be required to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the patient data privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), transparency requirements, and similar state, local and foreign laws, each as amended.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item, good, facility or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and other individuals and entities on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of the facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it. Rather, if “one purpose” of the remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to, among others, a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for a medical or other item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the United States government. For example, pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been, and continue to be, investigated or prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. Manufacturers can be held liable under the federal False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly

and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may be broader in scope and apply regardless of payor. These laws are enforced by various state agencies and through private actions. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, and restrict marketing practices or require disclosure of marketing expenditures. In addition, certain state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their implementing regulations, impose requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates that are independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. State and foreign laws, including for example the European Union General Data Protection Regulation also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, 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. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

We may also be subject to federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs, as well as federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities that potentially harm consumers.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) annually report information to CMS related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians, as defined by such law, certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians and teaching hospitals and certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the U.S., third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European Union (EU), governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, the ACA has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. Among the ACA provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, in addition to those otherwise described above, are the following:

•

created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in some government healthcare programs that began in 2011;

•

increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, retroactive to January 1, 2010, to 23.1% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for most branded and generic drugs, respectively, and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP);

•

created a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts, off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;

•

created a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research;

•

expanded healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), created new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;

Further legislation or regulation could be passed that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted:

•

The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Subsequent legislation extended the 2% payment reduction which remains in effect through 2030. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation;

•

The U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years;

•

On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces;

•

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 drug products 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 pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act; and

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent United States Congressional inquiries and federal and state legislative activity designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

President Biden has issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new

manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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. Individual states in the United States have also been increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We anticipate that these and other healthcare reform efforts will continue to result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could materially harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and 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 products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

The FCPA prohibits any United States individual or business from offering, paying, promising to pay, or authorizing payment of money or anything of value, to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business.

The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials for the purposes of the statute. Certain payments made in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-United States nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products.

Accordingly, if we expand our presence outside of the United States, we will need to dedicate additional resources to complying with the laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which it plans to operate. Therefore, this may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the United States Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations.

Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover costs and expenses it may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against it. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

In April 2014, the EU adopted the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Regulation), which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (Directive), on January 31, 2022. The new Regulation overhauls the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the new Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU member states (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each EU member state is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials.

To obtain regulatory approval of a medicinal product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission (EC) that is valid across all of the EU, and in the additional member states of the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The scientific evaluation of MAAs for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMPS) (which comprise gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered medicines) is primarily performed by a specialized scientific committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT). The CAT prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of the ATMP which is the subject of the MAA, which is sent for final approval to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). The CHMP recommendation is then sent to the EC, which adopts a decision binding in all EU Member States. The maximum timeframe for

the evaluation of an MAA for an ATMP is 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CAT and/or CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the EC, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major public health interest, particularly from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Products with an orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time “no similar medicinal product” for the same indication may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU where an agreed pediatric investigation plan for pediatric studies has been complied with. The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as an orphan medicinal product if it meets the following criteria: (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; and (2) either (i) the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (ii) without the benefits derived from orphan status, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the investment needed for its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Otherwise, orphan medicine marketing exclusivity may be revoked only in very select cases, such as if: (i) a second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the marketing authorization holder of the authorized orphan product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder of the authorized orphan product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

In addition to EU regulations related to the approval and commercialization of our products, we may be subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EU, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contracts with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

The GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we may be subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to

the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules.

In addition, further to the United Kingdom’s (UK) exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the UK GDPR into UK law. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the EC has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

To enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK, adequate safeguards must be implemented in compliance with European and UK data protection laws. On June 4, 2021, the EC issued new forms of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EU/EEA (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU/EEA (and not subject to the GDPR). The new standard contractual clauses replace the standard contractual clauses that were adopted previously under the EU Data Protection Directive. The UK is not subject to the EC’s new standard contractual clauses but has published a draft version of a UK-specific transfer mechanism, which, once finalized, will enable transfers from the UK. We will be required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the EU and UK GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost.

Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. If we fail to comply with any such laws or regulations, we may face significant fines and penalties that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

California enacted legislation, effective January 1, 2020, that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provides such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allows for a new cause of action for data breaches. The CCPA was recently amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) which became effective on January 1, 2023. As of this date, California has a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA. As our business progresses, the CCPA may impact (possibly significantly) our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.

Additionally, some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. We expect that there will continue to be new proposed and amended laws, regulations and industry standards concerning privacy, data protection and information security in the U.S. Already in the U.S. we have witnessed significant developments at the state level. For example, on January 1, 2023, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (the “CDPA”) became effective. Further, many additional US state privacy laws will go into effect throughout 2023: the Colorado Privacy Act (the “CPA”) (July 1, 2023); the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (the “CTDPA”) (July 1, 2023); and the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (the “UCPA”) (December 31, 2023). The CDPA, CPA, CTDPA, and UCPA are substantially similar in scope and contain many of the same requirements and exceptions as the CCPA, including a general exemption for clinical trial data and limited obligations for entities regulated by HIPAA.

A number of other states have proposed new privacy laws, some of which are similar to the above discussed recently passed laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.

As of December 31, 2022, we had 132 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

We offer attractive benefits, including competitive salaries, excellent health insurance, and a 401K match. We are committed to pay equity, regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation and conduct comprehensive pay equity analyses on a

semi-annual basis. In addition to providing strong benefits packages to employees, we believe in fostering individual and organizational effectiveness by offering our employees various professional development opportunities. We believe that investing in our employees’ career growth provides individuals and the organization with the knowledge and skills to respond effectively to current and future business demands and support to the organization’s development efforts. Our culture is one that actively supports the application of new knowledge and skills on the job. In 2023, we plan to continue add to our human capital resources as we grow. We are also monitoring the current landscape of wage inflation and labor shortages in connection with our employees' overall compensation.

We own or have rights to various trademarks, service marks and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business. This Annual Report on Form 10-K may also contain trademarks, service marks and trade names of third parties, which are the property of their respective owners. Our use or display of third parties’ trademarks, service marks, trade names or products in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is not intended to, and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship by us. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may appear without the ®, ™ or SM symbols, but the omission of such references is not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the right of the applicable owner of these trademarks, service marks and trade names.

Our Internet address is www.adicetbio.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. In evaluating the Company and our business, you should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties, together with all other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition,” as well as our other filings with the SEC, before investing in our common stock. Any of the risk factors we describe below could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. The market price of our common stock could decline if one or more of these risks or uncertainties actually occur, causing you to lose all or part of your investment in our common stock. The risks and uncertainties we describe below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we currently do not know about or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also impair our business. Certain statements below are forward-looking statements. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Industry Data” section in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We have a limited operating history and face significant challenges and expense as we build our capabilities.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We began operations in November 2014. We have a limited operating history upon which someone can evaluate our business and prospects and is subject to the risks inherent in any early stage company, including, among other things, risks that we may not be able to hire sufficient qualified personnel and establish operating controls and procedures. We currently do not have complete in-house resources to enable our gamma delta T cell platform. As we build our own capabilities, we expect to encounter risks and uncertainties frequently experienced by growing companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, including the risks and uncertainties described herein. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.

We have incurred net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses in the future.

We are an early clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses since our inception. To date, we have financed our operations primarily with proceeds from our license and collaboration agreements and the issuance and sale of our capital stock, including a follow-on public offering in December 2021 which raised net proceeds of approximately $94.2 million from the sale of our common stock as well as an at-the-market offering in August 2022 which raised net proceeds of $43.4 million. Although we recorded net income of $4.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2022, this was primarily due to the exercise of an option by Regeneron under the Regeneron Agreement (as defined below) related to ADI-002 which resulted in a $20.0 million payment received and recognized as revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2022. In the year ended December 31, 2022, we recorded net loss of $69.8 million. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $238.1 million.

We expect to incur significant expenditures for the foreseeable future, and we expect these expenditures to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, product candidates based on our gamma delta T cell platform, including ADI-001 and ADI-925. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. 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 stockholders’ equity and working capital. Further, 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 would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product candidates or even continue our operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects and cause investors to lose all or part of their investments.

Our history of recurring losses and anticipated expenditures could raise substantial doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern.

As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe that with $257.7 million in cash and cash equivalents, we are capitalized into the first half of 2025. Our ability to continue as a going concern beyond this point will require us to obtain additional funding. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected, and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts of one or more of our product candidates, or may be forced to reduce or terminate our operations. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. In our own future required quarterly assessments, we may again conclude that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and future reports from our independent registered public accounting firm may also contain statements expressing substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there exists substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Our business and future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, our most advanced product candidate, ADI-001. ADI-001 is in the early stages of development with an ongoing Phase 1 study to assess the safety and efficacy of ADI-001 in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients that commenced in March 2021.

Our preclinical results or clinical results to date may not predict results for our planned or ongoing trials or any future studies of ADI-001 or any other allogeneic gamma delta T cell product candidate. Because of the lack of evaluation of allogeneic products and gamma delta T cell therapy products in the clinic to date, any such product’s failure, or the failure of other allogeneic T cell therapies or gamma delta T cell therapies, may significantly influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions in regards to the viability of our entire pipeline of allogeneic T cell therapies, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation. If our gamma delta T cell therapy is viewed as less safe or effective than autologous therapies or other allogeneic T cell therapies, our ability to develop other allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapies may be significantly harmed.

All of our product candidates, including ADI-001, will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, because ADI-001 is our most advanced product candidate, and because our other product candidates are based on similar technology, if ADI-001 encounters safety or efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation and prospects.

Our gamma delta T cell candidates represent a novel approach to cancer treatment that creates significant challenges for us.

We are developing a pipeline of gamma delta T cell product candidates and a novel antibody platform that are intended for use in patient with certain cancers. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including:

•

understanding and addressing variability in the quality of a donor’s T cells, which could ultimately affect our ability to produce product in a reliable and consistent manner;

•

using medicines to manage adverse side effects of our product candidates which may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment;

•

conditioning patients with chemotherapy or other lymphodepletion agents in advance of administering our product candidates, which may increase the risk of adverse side effects;

•

obtaining regulatory approval, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory authorities have limited experience with development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer; and

The success of our business, including our ability to obtain financing and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the positive efficacy and safety profile and durability of our product candidates in our clinical trials, regulatory approval, successful development and commercialization of our novel product candidates, and our ability to build out our manufacturing capabilities, which may never occur. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety or durability for any of our product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Given our early stage of development, it may be several years, if at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a product candidate sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and prospects.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapy and our future success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. We are in the early stages of developing our platform and product candidates and there can be no assurance that any development problems we have experienced or may experience in the future will not cause significant delays or result in unforeseen issues or unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems or issues can be overcome. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our future clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, our expectations with regard to the advantages of an allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapy platform relative to other therapies may not materialize or materialize to the degree we anticipate. Further, our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Approvals by the EMA and FDA for existing autologous CAR T-cell therapies, such as Kymriah® and Yescarta®, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. Also, while we expect reduced variability in our products candidates compared to autologous products, we do not have significant clinical data supporting any benefit of lower variability. More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates.

Our product candidates may also not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T-cell therapies that have previously been approved or alpha beta T cell therapies that may be approved in the future. Unexpected clinical outcomes could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and prospects.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt our clinical development, prevent our regulatory approval, limit our commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Undesirable or unacceptable 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 other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Approved autologous CAR T-cell therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity, and adverse events have resulted in the death of patients. While we believe our gamma delta T cell approach may lessen such results, similar or other adverse events for our allogeneic gamma delta T cell product candidates may occur. In addition, while we anticipate our focus on gamma delta T cells may lessen the likelihood of GvHD relative to therapies relying on unrelated alpha beta T cells, similar or other adverse events for our allogeneic gamma delta T cell product candidates may occur.

If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. 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. Novel therapeutic candidates, such as those we are developing, may result in novel side effect profiles that may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We anticipate having to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in serious adverse events including patient deaths. Based on available preclinical data and on management’s clinical experience with other cell therapy agents, the safety profile of our pipeline product candidates is expected to include cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and possibly additional adverse events. Any of these occurrences may have a material adverse effect our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, insufficient durability of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.

In addition, for the ongoing Phase 1 study of ADI-001 and any future trials that may be completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects and financial condition.

We may not be able to file Investigational New Drug (IND) applications to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA may not permit us to proceed.

In October 2020, the IND for our lead product candidate, ADI-001, to treat patients with NHL was cleared by the FDA. Our pipeline also includes ADI-925, an engineered CAd T cell product candidate targeting tumor stress ligands. We have five additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs in preclinical development and previously announced our plan to file one new IND every 12-18 months, including one new IND in the second half of 2023. We may not be able to make these filings on the timelines we expect, which may cause delays in commencing additional clinical trials. Even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee

that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND for any of our other product candidates will result in the FDA allowing trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in a decision by us, by independent institutional review boards (IRBs) or independent ethics committees, or by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate clinical trials. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies or the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies that we did not anticipate. Moreover, we cannot be assured that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in a decision by us, by IRBs, or independent ethics committees or by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate clinical trials, including as a result of a clinical hold. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. The inability to initiate clinical trials any of our product candidates on the timeline currently anticipated or at all could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and prospects.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if these trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

•

delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations (CROs) and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical study sites;

•

imposition of a temporary or permanent clinical hold by regulatory agencies for a number of reasons, including after review of an IND application or amendment, or equivalent application or amendment; as a result of a safety finding that presents unreasonable risk to clinical trial participants; a negative finding from an inspection of our clinical study operations or study sites; developments on trials conducted by competitors for related technology that raises FDA concerns about risk to patients of the technology broadly; or if FDA finds that the investigational protocol or plan is clearly deficient to meet its stated objectives;

•

transfer of manufacturing processes to any new contract drug manufacturing organizations (CDMO) or our own manufacturing facilities or any other development or commercialization partner for the manufacture of product candidates;

•

clinical studies of our product candidates producing negative or inconclusive results, which may result in us deciding, or regulators requiring us, to conduct additional clinical studies or abandon product development programs;

•

delays or failure to secure supply agreements with suitable raw material suppliers, or any failures by suppliers to meet our quantity or quality requirements for necessary raw materials; and

•

delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating, or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of our product candidates for use in clinical studies or the inability to do any of the foregoing.

Our timing of filing on these product candidates is dependent on further preclinical and manufacturing success, which we work on with various third parties. We cannot be sure that we will be able to submit our INDs in a timely manner, if at all, or that submission of an IND or IND amendment will result in the FDA allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Monitoring safety of patients receiving our product candidates is challenging, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize.

In our planned clinical trials of our product candidates, we have contracted with and expect to continue to contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of ADI-001 may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment. Use of these medicines may increase with new physicians and centers administering our product candidates, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize on the timelines anticipated or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including, without limitation, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with the protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until the conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

We intend to conduct a number of clinical trials for product candidates in the fields of cancer in different geographies, all of which have been affected to varying extents by the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will have an impact on various aspects of our future clinical trials. For example, investigators may not want to take the risk of exposing cancer patients to COVID-19 since the dosing of patients is conducted within an in-patient setting. Other potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on our future various clinical trials include patient dosing and study monitoring, which may be paused or delayed due to changes in policies at various clinical sites, federal, state, local or foreign laws, rules and regulations, including quarantines or other travel restrictions, prioritization of healthcare resources toward pandemic efforts, including diminished attention of physicians serving as our clinical trial investigators and reduced availability of site staff supporting the conduct of our clinical trials, interruption or delays in the operations of the government regulators, or other reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unknown how long these pauses or disruptions could continue.

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites are also being used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in that clinical trial site.

Moreover, because our product candidates represent unproven methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation or autologous CAR T-cell therapies, rather than enroll patients in our clinical trial. Patients eligible for allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR-T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer and inability to wait for autologous CAR T-cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our ongoing clinical trial and planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement.

Human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because our gamma delta T cell product candidates are based on new technologies and will require the creation of inventory of mass-produced, "off-the-shelf" products, we expect that we will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, costs to treat patients with NHL cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates can be significant. Accordingly, our clinical trial costs are likely to be significantly higher than for more conventional therapeutic technologies or drug products, which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position and ability to achieve profitability.

A variety of risks associated with conducting research and clinical trials abroad and marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

We plan to globally develop our product candidates. Accordingly, we expect that it will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including:

•

increased difficulties in managing the logistics and transportation of storing and shipping product candidates produced in the United States and shipping the product candidate to the patient abroad;

•

challenges enforcing our contractual and intellectual property rights, especially in those foreign countries that do not respect and protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the United States;

These and other risks associated with our potential international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.

The FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients who are currently not adequately treated with currently approved therapies. We expect to initially seek approval of ADI-001 and our other product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment and potentially as a first line therapy. There is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials, including potentially comparative trials against approved therapies. We are also targeting a similar patient population as autologous CAR T-cell product candidates, including approved autologous CAR T-cell products. Our therapies may not be as safe and effective as autologous CAR T-cell therapies and may only be approved for patients who are ineligible for autologous CAR T-cell therapy.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

If we fail to develop additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be limited.

One of our core strategies is to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates beyond ADI-001. Our pipeline also includes ADI-925, an engineered CAd T-cell product candidate targeting tumor stress ligands. In addition, we have five additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs in preclinical development and plan to submit one new IND to the FDA every 12-18 months, including one new IND in the second half of 2023. Developing, obtaining regulatory approval for and commercializing additional gamma delta T cell product candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot provide you any assurance that it will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.

Even if we receive FDA approval to market additional product candidates for the treatment of cancer, we cannot assure you that any such product candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be limited. Moreover, a failure in obtaining regulatory approval of additional product

candidates may have a negative effect on the approval process of any other, or result in losing approval of any approved, product candidate which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and as a company have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, if approved, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and as a company have no experience in marketing products. We may develop a marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that it will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval in the United States or overseas. If we are unable to successfully market and distribute our products, our business, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biopharmaceutical industry, and the immuno-oncology industry specifically, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Specifically, engineered T cells face significant competition in both the CAR and T cell receptor (TCR) technology space from multiple companies. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is affected by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

Although we established manufacturing capabilities at our Redwood City facility in the fourth quarter of 2022, we rely and expect to continue to rely to a significant extent, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical development. We may not be able to achieve clinical or commercial manufacturing and cell processing on our own or through our CDMOs, including timely supply of "off-the-shelf" product to satisfy demands to support clinical trials of any of our product candidates. Very few companies have experience in manufacturing gamma delta T cell therapy derived from blood of unrelated donors and gamma delta T cells require several complex manufacturing steps before being available as a

mass-produced, "off-the-shelf" product. While we believe our manufacturing and processing approaches are appropriate to support our clinical product development, we have limited experience in managing the allogeneic gamma delta T cell engineering process, and our allogeneic processes may be more difficult or more expensive than the approaches taken by our competitors. We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by or on our behalf will result in T cells that will be safe and effective.

Our operations remain subject to review and oversight by the FDA and the FDA could object to our use of any manufacturing facilities. We must first receive approval from the FDA prior to licensure to manufacture our product candidates, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) and other government regulations. Our license to manufacture product candidates will be subject to continued regulatory review.

Our cost of goods development is at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of 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 or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future.

Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and approved products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

We may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients.

We may also experience both internal and external manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and prospects.

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in this market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.

To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock units that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by fluctuations in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We expect to spend a substantial amount of capital in the clinical development of our product candidates, including the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for ADI-001 and the preclinical development of additional internal gamma delta T cell therapy programs, including ADI-925. We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. In particular, we will require substantial additional financing to enable commercial production of our products and initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. Further, if approved, we will require significant additional amounts in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates.

As of December 31, 2022, we believe that with $257.7 million in cash and cash equivalents, we are capitalized into the first half of 2025. However, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Other than the funding agreement and our loan agreement with Pacific Western Bank (PacWest), we have no committed source of additional capital and if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization themselves. Additionally, United States and global economic uncertainty, higher interest rates and diminished credit availability may limit our ability to incur indebtedness on favorable terms. Furthermore, the impact of geopolitical tension, such as a deterioration in the bilateral relationship between the United States and China or an escalation in conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including any resulting sanctions, export controls or other restrictive actions, also could lead to disruption, instability and volatility in the global markets, which may have an impact on our ability to obtain additional funding.

Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We have grown rapidly and will need to continue to grow the size of our organization, and it may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we have rapidly expanded our employee base and expect to continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

•

managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical and FDA review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of our 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, pursuant to arrangements which expire after a certain period of time, to provide certain services, including certain research and development as well as general and administrative support. There can be no assurance 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 consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants 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 expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and prospects.

We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. 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. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our 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 our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our License and Collaboration Agreement (the Regeneron Agreement) with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) requires significant research and development commitments that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our CDMO, CROs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster, the severity and frequency of which may be amplified by global climate change, or other business interruptions. We have facilities located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may materially and adversely affect our business and operations.

We are subject to risks related to public health crises such as the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows may be affected by a pandemic or epidemic, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting volatility and uncertainty it may cause, including as a result of prolonged economic downturn or recession. The COVID-19 pandemic and policies and regulations implemented by governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which have been lifted, have had a significant impact, both directly and indirectly, on global businesses and commerce. Such measures have had, and would continue to have, adverse impacts on the United States economy of uncertain severity and duration and may negatively impact our operations and those of third parties on which we rely, including by causing disruptions in the supply of our product candidates and the conduct of current and future clinical trials. In addition, a pandemic or epidemic may affect the operations of the FDA and other health authorities, which could result in delays of reviews and approvals, including with respect to our product candidates. A pandemic or epidemic is also likely to directly or indirectly impact the pace of enrollment in our clinical trials as patients may avoid or may not be able to travel to healthcare facilities and physicians’ offices unless due to a health emergency, and clinical trial sites may be less willing to enroll patients in clinical trials that may compromise a person’s immune system. Such facilities and offices may also be required to focus limited resources on non-clinical trial matters, including treatment of patients impacted by such pandemic or epidemic, and may not be available, in whole or in part, for clinical trial services related to ADI-001 or our other product candidates. Additionally, while the ultimate economic impact, and duration of a pandemic or epidemic are difficult to assess or predict, the impact of such pandemic or epidemic on

the global financial markets may reduce our ability to access capital, which could negatively impact our short-term and long-term liquidity.

To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic or another pandemic or epidemic may impact our business and financial results, it may also heighten many of the other risks described in this ‘‘Risk Factors’’ section, such as those relating to the timing and completion of our clinical trials and our ability to obtain future financing.

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine may increase the likelihood of supply interruptions which could impact our ability to find the materials we need to make our product candidates.

The ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine may increase the likelihood of supply interruptions and hinder our ability to find the materials we need to make our product candidates. Supply disruptions make it more difficult for us to find favorable pricing and reliable sources for the materials we need, which increases pressure on our costs and increases the risk that we may be unable to acquire the necessary goods and services to successfully manufacture our product candidates. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients in preclinical studies or clinical trials, such as our clinical trial of ADI-001 in NHL patients, could be delayed or suspended. Any delay or interruption in the supply of trial materials could delay the completion of such trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining these research and development activities and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new preclinical studies or clinical trials at additional expense or terminate such trials completely.

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other government agencies, or disruptions in their staffing levels related to the COVID-19 global pandemic, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the approval of our product candidates rely, which would negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, adequate staffing, furloughs, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. Since March 2020 when foreign and domestic inspections of facilities were largely placed on hold, the FDA has been working to resume pre-pandemic levels of inspection activities, including routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval of a marketing application and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue, depending on the circumstances, a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Our relationships with customers, physicians including clinical investigators, clinical research organizations and third-party payors are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, transparency laws, government price reporting and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, vendors, or other agents violate these laws, we could face substantial penalties.

These laws may impact, among other things, our clinical research program, as well as our proposed and future sales, marketing, and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services is subject to extensive laws and regulations designed to prevent fraud, 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 and other business arrangements. We may also be subject to federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of identifiable patient information. For further discussion on U.S. healthcare regulations, see the section entitled “Business–Government Regulation and Product Approval—Other United States Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. 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. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, or our arrangements with physicians, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors violate these laws, we may be subject to investigations, enforcement actions and/or significant penalties.

We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct or business noncompliance, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct 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 be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending themselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Data protection, privacy and similar laws restrict access, use, and disclosure of information, and failure to comply with or adapt to changes in these laws could materially and adversely harm our business.

We are subject to federal and state data privacy and security laws and regulations and laws and expectations relating to privacy continue to evolve. Changes in these laws may limit our data access, use, and disclosure, and may require increased expenditures. In addition, data protection, privacy and similar laws protect more than patient information and, although they vary by jurisdiction, these laws can extend to employee information, business contact information, provider information, and other information relating to identifiable individuals. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act requires covered businesses to, among other things, provide disclosures to California consumers regarding the collection, use and disclosure of such consumers’ personal information and afford such consumers new rights with respect to their personal information, including the right to opt out of certain sales of personal information. In addition, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) ) which amended to CCPA, and the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act became effective on January 1, 2023 and comprehensive privacy laws will become effective in Colorado, Connecticut and Utah in 2023. Further, numerous other states have proposed similar privacy laws. We believe that further increased regulation in additional jurisdictions is likely in the area of data privacy. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our ability to provide services to patients and, in turn, our results of operations.

The collection and use of personal health data in the EEA is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and creates direct obligations on service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States.

In addition, further to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the United Kingdom’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the European Union’s data protection regime. Although the GDPR and the UK GDPR currently impose substantially similar obligations, it is possible that

over time the UK GDPR could become less aligned with the GDPR. The UK government has announced plans to reform the data protection legal framework in the UK in its Data Reform Bill but those have been put on hold. This lack of clarity on future UK laws and regulations and their interaction with EU laws and regulations could add legal risk, uncertainty, complexity and cost to our handling of EU personal information and our privacy and data security compliance programs and could require us to implement different compliance measures for the UK and the EU. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the United Kingdom to countries not regarded by the United Kingdom as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the United Kingdom to the EEA remain free flowing. To enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK, adequate safeguards must be implemented in compliance with European and UK data protection laws. On June 4, 2021, the EC issued new forms of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EU/EEA (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU/EEA (and not subject to the GDPR). The new standard contractual clauses replace the standard contractual clauses that were adopted previously under the EU Data Protection Directive. The UK is not subject to the EC’s new standard contractual clauses but has published the UK International Data Transfer Agreement and International Data Transfer Addendum to the new standard contractual clauses (the “IDTA”), which enable transfers from the UK. For new transfers, the IDTA already needs to be in place, and must be in place for all existing transfers from the UK from March 21, 2024. Following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU, in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, Case C-311/18 ("Schrems II"), companies relying on standard contractual clauses to govern transfers of personal data to third countries (in particular the United States) will need to assess whether the data importer can ensure sufficient guarantees for safeguarding the personal data under GDPR. This assessment includes assessing whether third party vendors can also ensure these guarantees. The same assessment is required for transfers governed by the IDTA. We will be required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or UK GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States may result in fines up to €20 million or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR and UK GDPR grant data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR or UK GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR and UK GDPR, will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, many jurisdictions outside of Europe are also considering and/or enacting comprehensive data protection legislation. We also continue to see jurisdictions imposing data localization laws. These regulations may interfere with our intended business activities, inhibit our ability to expand into those markets or prohibit us from continuing to offer services in those markets without significant additional costs. Because the interpretation and application of many privacy and data protection laws (including the GDPR), commercial frameworks, and standards are uncertain, it is possible that these laws, frameworks, and standards may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our existing data management practices and policies. If so, in addition to the possibility of fines, lawsuits, breach of contract claims, and other claims and penalties, we could be required to fundamentally change our business activities and practices or modify our solutions, which could have an adverse effect on our business. Any inability to adequately address privacy and security concerns, even if unfounded, or comply with applicable privacy and security or data security laws, regulations, and policies, could result in additional cost and liability to us, damage our reputation, inhibit our ability to conduct trials, and adversely affect our business.

Data protection, privacy and similar laws protect more than patient information and, although they vary by jurisdiction, these laws can extend to employee information, business contact information, provider information, and other information relating to identifiable individuals. Failure to comply with these laws may result in, among other things, civil and criminal liability, negative publicity, damage to our reputation, and liability under contractual provisions. In addition, compliance with such laws may require increased costs to us or may dictate that wet not offer certain types of services in the future.

Raising funds through lending arrangements may restrict our operations or produce other adverse results.

Our current Loan and Security Agreement with PacWest, as further amended on July 8, 2020, September 14, 2020, September 15, 2020, October 21, 2022 and December 2, 2022 (the Loan Agreement), sets the interest rate of the term loans under the Loan Agreement at the greater of (i) 0.25% above the Prime Rate then in effect and (ii) 4.25%. The Loan Agreement contains a variety of affirmative and negative covenants, including required financial reporting, requirements to maintain certain balances at PacWest, limitations on certain dispositions of assets, limitations on the incurrence of additional debt and other requirements. To secure our performance of our obligations under this Loan Agreement, we granted a security interest in substantially all of our assets, other than certain intellectual property assets, to PacWest and issued a warrant to purchase our capital stock.

On March 13, 2023, we executed a letter agreeing that, notwithstanding the covenants included in the Fifth Amendment to

the Loan Agreement, dated as of December 2, 2022 (the 2022 Loan Amendment), until June 30, 2023 (i) we and our subsidiaries will not be required to maintain the lesser of $200 million or seventy percent (70%) of our combined balances in demand deposit accounts, money market funds and/or insured cash sweep (ICS) accounts with PacWest and (ii) we must maintain our combined balances at PacWest or its affiliates, including Pacific Western Asset Management (the Letter). At all times following June 30, 223, we will again be required to comply with the terms of the 2022 Loan Amendment. Upon executing the Letter, we wired $187.2 million from our ICS accounts at PacWest to Pacific Western Asset Management who subsequently invested the funds into money market funds held in custody with U.S. Bank National Association. Our remaining balance of approximately $10.0 million of funds held in demand deposit accounts and ICS accounts with PacWest represents approximately 4% of our cash and cash equivalents as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our failure to comply with the covenants in the Loan Agreement, including as a result of changing the position of certain of our accounts, failure to transfer funds back to PacWest at expiration of the Letter, the occurrence of a material impairment in our prospect of repayment operations, business or financial condition, our ability to repay the loan, or in the value, perfection or priority of PacWest’s lien on our assets, as determined by PacWest, or the occurrence of certain other specified events could result in an event of default that, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of all or a substantial portion of our debt, potential foreclosure on our assets and other adverse results. Additionally, we are bound by certain negative covenants setting forth actions that are not permitted to be taken during the term of the Loan Agreement without consent of PacWest, including, without limitation, incurring certain additional indebtedness, making certain asset dispositions, entering into certain mergers, acquisitions or other business combination transactions or incurring any non-permitted lien or other encumbrance on our assets. The foregoing prohibitions and constraints on our operations could result in our inability to: (a) acquire promising intellectual property or other assets on desired timelines or terms; (b) reduce costs by disposing of assets or business segments no longer deemed advantageous to retain; (c) reallocate certain of our cash deposits and money market accounts depending on various global banking events; (d) stimulate further corporate growth or development through the assumption of additional debt; or (e) enter into other arrangements that necessitate the imposition of a lien on corporate assets. Moreover, if the conditions set forth in the consent provided by PacWest are not satisfied, or if we do not comply with the terms of the Letter, we would effectively need to terminate the Loan Agreement and repay any outstanding loan funds or refinance the facility with another lender. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, no amounts have been drawn under the Loan Agreement.

Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as actual events or concerns involving liquidity, defaults or non-performance by financial institutions or transactional counterparties, could adversely affect the Company’s current and projected business operations and its financial condition and results of operations.

Actual events involving limited liquidity, defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions, transactional counterparties or other companies in the financial services industry or the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds or other similar risks, have in the past and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank and Silvergate Capital Corp. were each swept into receivership. Although a statement by the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC stated all depositors of SVB would have access to all of their money after only one business day of closure, including funds held in uninsured deposit accounts, borrowers under credit agreements, letters of credit and certain other financial instruments with SVB, Signature Bank or any other financial institution that is placed into receivership by the FDIC may be unable to access undrawn amounts thereunder. Although we are not a borrower or party to any such instruments with SVB, Signature or any other financial institution currently in receivership, if any of our lenders or counterparties to any such instruments, including PacWest or its affiliates, were to be placed into receivership, we may be unable to access such funds. In addition, counterparties to SVB credit agreements and arrangements, and third parties such as beneficiaries of letters of credit (among others), may experience direct impacts from the closure of SVB and uncertainty remains over liquidity concerns in the broader financial services industry. Similar impacts have occurred in the past, such as during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.

Inflation and rapid increases in interest rates have led to a decline in the trading value of previously issued government securities with interest rates below current market interest rates. Although the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve Board have announced a program to provide up to $25 billion of loans to financial institutions secured by certain of such government securities held by financial institutions to mitigate the risk of potential losses on the sale of such instruments, widespread demands for customer withdrawals or other liquidity needs of financial institutions for immediately liquidity may exceed the capacity of such program. There is no guarantee that the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve Board will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion.

Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to funding sources and other credit arrangements in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect us, the financial institutions with which we have credit agreements or arrangements directly, or the financial services industry or economy in general. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry. These factors could involve financial

institutions or financial services industry companies with which we have financial or business relationships, but could also include factors involving financial markets or the financial services industry generally.

The results of events or concerns that involve one or more of these factors could include a variety of material and adverse impacts on our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations. These could include, but may not be limited to, the following:

•

loss of access to revolving existing credit facilities or other working capital sources and/or the inability to refund, roll over or extend the maturity of, or enter into new credit facilities or other working capital resources;

In addition, investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks, adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations or result in violations of federal or state wage and hour laws. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, any further deterioration in the macroeconomic economy or financial services industry could lead to losses or defaults by our customers or suppliers, which in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our current and/or projected business operations and results of operations and financial condition. For example, a customer may fail to make payments when due, default under their agreements with us, become insolvent or declare bankruptcy, or a supplier may determine that it will no longer deal with us as a customer. In addition, a customer or supplier could be adversely affected by any of the liquidity or other risks that are described above as factors that could result in material adverse impacts on the Company, including but not limited to delayed access or loss of access to uninsured deposits or loss of the ability to draw on existing credit facilities involving a troubled or failed financial institution. Any customer or supplier bankruptcy or insolvency, or the failure of any customer to make payments when due, or any breach or default by a customer or supplier, or the loss of any significant supplier relationships, could result in material losses to the Company and may material adverse impacts on our business.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could harm our business and negatively impact the value of our common stock.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements, or may identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an emerging growth company (EGC) or a smaller reporting company (SRC), our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We will remain an EGC until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.235 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a large accelerated filer, with at least $700.0 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; or (4) the last day of the fiscal

year ending after the fifth anniversary of our initial public offering, which would be December 31, 2023.

We will qualify as a SRC if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million (or $700 million if our annual revenue is less than $100 million) as of June 30 in any given year. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We expect to continue our efforts to improve our control processes, though there can be no assurance that our efforts will ultimately be successful or avoid potential future material weaknesses, and we expect to continue incurring additional costs as a result of these efforts. If we are unable to successfully remediate any future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, or if we identify any additional material weaknesses, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and our stock price may decline as a result. We also could become subject to investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could harm our reputation and our financial condition, or divert financial and management resources from our core business.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Section 382 and Section 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as one or more shareholders or groups of shareholders who own at least 5 percent of the corporation’s equity increasing their equity ownership in the aggregate by a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and certain other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As of December 31, 2022, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $271.2 million, and our ability to utilize those net operating loss carryforwards could be limited by an “ownership change” as described above or subject to other limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us.

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future.

Additional changes to U.S. federal income tax law are currently being contemplated, and future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, new tax laws may be enacted, or regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued under existing or new tax laws, which could result in an increase in our or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law or in the interpretation thereof. You are urged to consult your tax advisor regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

If our collaboration with Regeneron is terminated, or if Regeneron materially breaches its obligations thereunder, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed.

Our financial performance may be significantly affected by our Regeneron collaboration that we have entered into to develop next-generation engineered immune-cell therapeutics with fully human CARs and TCRs directed to disease-specific cell surface antigens in order to enable the precise engagement and killing of tumor cells. Under the Regeneron Agreement, Regeneron paid us a non-refundable upfront payment of $25.0 million and an aggregate of $20.0 million of additional payments for research funding as of December 31, 2022, and we will collaborate with Regeneron to identify and validate targets and develop a pipeline of engineered immune-cell therapeutics for selected targets. Regeneron has the option to obtain development and commercial rights for a certain number of the product candidates developed by the parties, subject to an option payment for each product candidate. On January 28, 2022, we received a payment of $20.0 million from Regeneron for exercise of its option to license exclusive rights to ADI-002, and we completed the transfer of the associated license rights to Regeneron in the first quarter of 2022. If Regeneron exercises its option on a given product candidate, we then have an option to participate in the development

and commercialization for such product. If we do not exercise our option, we will be entitled to royalties on any future sales of such products by Regeneron. We did not exercise our option to participate in the development and commercialization of ADI-002. In addition to developing CARs and TCRs for use in novel immune-cell therapies as part of the collaboration, Regeneron will have the right to use these CARs and TCRs in our other antibody programs outside of the collaboration. Regeneron will also be entitled to royalties on any future sales of products developed and commercialized by us under the agreement. If Regeneron were to terminate our collaboration agreement with us, we may not have the resources or skills to replace those of our collaborator, which could require us to seek additional funding or another collaboration that might not be available on favorable terms or at all, and could cause significant delays in development and/or commercialization efforts and result in substantial additional costs to us. Termination of such collaboration agreement or the loss of rights provided to us under such agreement may create substantial new and additional risks to the successful development and commercialization of our products and could materially harm our financial condition and operating results.

Regeneron may change its strategic focus or pursue alternative technologies in a manner that results in reduced, delayed or no revenue to us under the agreement. Regeneron has a variety of marketed products and product candidates either by itself or under collaboration with other companies, including some of our competitors, and the corporate objectives of Regeneron may not be consistent with our best interests. Regeneron may change its position regarding its participation and funding of our and Regeneron joint activities, which may impact our ability to successfully pursue the program.

Our existing and future collaborations will be important to our business. If we are unable to maintain any of these collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered, and plan to enter, into collaborations with other companies, including our collaboration agreement with Regeneron and discovery agreement with Twist Bioscience Corporation (Twist), that we believe can provide us with additional capabilities beneficial to our business. The collaboration with Regeneron has provided us with important technologies, expertise and funding for our programs and technology. Under our discovery agreement with Twist, Twist will utilize its proprietary platform technology to assist us with the discovery of novel antibodies related to our gamma delta T cell therapy programs. We may receive additional technologies, expertise and funding under other collaborations in the future. Our existing therapeutic collaborations, and any future collaborations we enter into, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

•

collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs or license arrangements based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as a strategic transaction that may divert resources or create competing priorities;

•

collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

•

collaborators could develop independently, or with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products and product candidates if the collaborators believe that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;

•

product candidates discovered in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with our own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the development or commercialization of our product candidates;

•

collaborators may fail to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements regarding the development, manufacture, sale, distribution or marketing of a product candidate or product;

•

collaborators with sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the sale, marketing, manufacturing and distribution of such product or products;

•

disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation, payment obligations or the preferred course of discovery, development, sales or marketing, might cause delays or terminations of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional and burdensome responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive;

•

collaborators may not properly maintain or defend their or our relevant intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation and liability;

•

if a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination or cessation, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us; and

•

collaborations may be terminated by the collaborator, and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates, or potentially lose access to the collaborator’s intellectual property.

If our therapeutic collaborations do not result in the successful discovery, development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates our agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development and commercialization of our technology and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology. All of the risks relating to product discovery, development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in these risk factors also apply to the activities of our therapeutic collaborators.

In addition to the Regeneron collaboration described above, for some of our programs, we may in the future determine to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for discovery, development and potential commercialization of therapeutic products. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators because, for example, third parties also have rights to allogeneic T cell technologies. For example, in April 2020, Johnson & Johnson entered into a collaboration agreement with Fate Therapeutics, a company that is also using allogeneic T cell technologies, for up to four CAR Natural Killer (NK) and CAR T-cell therapies. Our ability to 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. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail discovery efforts or the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay our development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay our potential manufacture or commercialization, or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our expense. If we elect to fund and undertake discovery, development, manufacturing or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary discovery, development, manufacturing and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates, manufacture the product candidates, bring them to market or continue to develop our technology and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

We are subject to certain exclusivity obligations under our agreement with Regeneron.

During the five-year period following the effective date of the Regeneron agreement, with certain limited exceptions, we may not directly or indirectly research, develop, manufacture or commercialize a gamma delta immune cell product (ICP) or grant a license to do the foregoing, except pursuant to the terms of the Regeneron agreement. Both parties also have obligations not to research, develop, manufacture or commercialize an ICP with the same target as one being developed under a research program or commercialized by a party (and royalty bearing under the agreement), for so long as such activities are occurring. These exclusivity obligations are limited to engineered gamma delta immune cells to targets reasonably considered to have therapeutic relevance in oncology. If our collaboration with Regeneron is not successful, including any failure caused by the risks listed in the preceding paragraphs, and the agreement and research programs are not terminated, we may not be able to enter into collaborations with other companies with respect to ICPs and our business could be adversely affected.

The exclusivity obligations under the Regeneron agreement expired on July 29, 2021. Prior to this expiration date, our ability to advance any gamma delta immune cell therapeutics outside of the scope of the research plan agreed on with Regeneron was limited. The restrictions on internal development under the Regeneron agreement could lead to delays in our ability to discover and develop gamma delta immune cell therapeutics for targets not covered by the collaboration with Regeneron and loss of opportunities to obtain additional research funding and advance our own technologies separately from the Regeneron collaboration. If we are delayed in our ability to advance our technologies due to the Regeneron agreement, our business could be harmed.

We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.

We currently depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us.

We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for 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 fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA 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, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated 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.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties 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 or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials will involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

We currently rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved.

We currently utilize, and expect to continue to utilize, third parties to manufacture our product candidates. If the field of cell therapy continues to expand, we may encounter increasing competition and costs for these materials and services. Demand for third-party manufacturing in cell therapy may grow at a faster rate than existing capacity, which could disrupt our ability to find and retain third-party manufacturers capable of producing sufficient quantities of our product candidates at an acceptable cost or at all. We have also not yet caused our product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to achieve manufacturing and processing at a commercial scale and therefore may be unable to create an inventory of mass-produced, "off-the-shelf" product to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates.

We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the commercial manufacturing and processing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.

In addition, we anticipate reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers may adversely affect our operations and exposes us to the following risks:

•

We may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA may have questions regarding any replacement contractor. This may require new testing and regulatory interactions. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our products after receipt of FDA questions, if any;

•

Our third-party manufacturers might be unable to timely formulate and manufacture our product or produce the quantity and quality required to meet our clinical and commercial needs, if any;

•

Our future contract manufacturers may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to supply our clinical trials or to successfully produce, store and distribute our products;

•

Manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards;

•

We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to any improvements made by our third-party manufacturers in the manufacturing process for our products; and

If any CDMO with whom we contract fails to perform its obligations, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different CDMO, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CDMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CDMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CDMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidates according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CDMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a CDMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidates that such CDMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CDMO or require us to obtain a license from such CDMO in order to have another CDMO manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any, of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.

Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, including viral vectors that deliver the targeting moiety and other genes to the product candidate. We currently manufacture through contract manufacturers, some of which have limited resources and experience supporting a commercial product, and such suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. Those suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

In addition, some raw materials utilized in the manufacture of our candidates are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. Further, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our

operating results. We may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers 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 and our suppliers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we and our suppliers 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. 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.

Our internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.

Our internal computer systems and the systems of our CROs, contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses and unauthorized access. Additionally, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have transitioned certain of our workforce to a remote working model. As our employees and our business partners’ employees work from home and access our systems remotely, we may be subject to heightened security and privacy risks, including the risks of cyberattacks and privacy incidents. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

We may not realize the benefits of acquired assets or other strategic transactions.

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:

•

disruption in our relationships with collaborators or suppliers as a result of such a transaction; and possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses or joint ventures.

If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction. Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

The FDA regulatory approval process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States until we receive approval of a biologics license application (BLA) from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to the EMA or comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and sufficient supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience with commercial development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer. We may also request regulatory approval of future product candidates by target, regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials only involved cancers of certain origins. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

We may also experience delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, including but not limited to:

•

governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulation or policy relating to the development and commercialization of our product candidate by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities;

•

reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

•

delay or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or institutional review boards, or IRBs, in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site, or their suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;

•

having patients complete a trial, including having patients enrolled in clinical trials dropping out of the trial before the product candidate is manufactured and returned to the site, or return for post-treatment follow-up;

•

the cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for any product candidate for which we may receive regulatory approval in regions where we choose to commercialize our products on our own; or

•

potential unforeseen business disruptions or market fluctuations that delay our product development or clinical trials and increase our costs or expenses, such as business or operational disruptions, delays, or system failures due to malware, unauthorized access, terrorism, war, natural disasters, strikes, geopolitical conflicts, restrictions on trade, import or export restrictions, or public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

We could also encounter delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or based on a recommendation by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to competition sooner than anticipated.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) was enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. 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 the BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that are approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the 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.

The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established cell therapy products are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approval.

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy and durability of effect must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

Because we are developing novel allogeneic cell immunotherapy product candidates, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the category of cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing cell therapy products.

Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the EU a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our gamma delta CAR T-cell product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies.

Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is for the sponsor to provide dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical studies of the relevant biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical studies typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We expect registrational trials for our product candidates to be designed to evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate in an open-label, non-comparative, two-stage, pivotal, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial in patients who have exhausted available treatment options. If the results are sufficiently compelling, we intend to discuss with the FDA submission of a BLA for the relevant product candidate. However, we do not have any agreement or guidance from the FDA that our regulatory development plans will be sufficient for submission of a BLA. In addition, the FDA may only allow us to evaluate patients that have failed or who are ineligible for autologous therapy, which are extremely difficult patients to treat and patients with advanced and aggressive cancer, and our product candidates may fail to improve outcomes for such patients.

The FDA may grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and, as a condition for accelerated approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval to perform post marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug or biologic may be subject to withdrawal procedures by the FDA that are more accelerated than those available for regular approvals. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.

Our clinical trial results may also not support approval. In addition, our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

•

we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that our product candidates are safe and effective for any of their proposed indications;

•

the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval, including due to the heterogeneity of patient populations;

•

the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to support the submission of a BLA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;

•

the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

We may seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates across various indications, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting a BLA. In the U.S., orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease 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, including a BLA, to market the same biologic (meaning, a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other biologics that do not have the same principal molecular structural features for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products.

We may seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

RMAT designation, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek RMAT designation for one or more of our product candidates. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation to expedite review of a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and for which preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products 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. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation for any of our product candidates. RMAT designation does not change the FDA’s standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

Positive results from early preclinical studies and clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of the results of any future clinical trials of our product candidates, and may change as more patient data becomes available and is subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. If we cannot replicate the positive results from our earlier preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates in our future clinical trials, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidate.

From time to time, we may publish interim, top-line or preliminary results from our preclinical studies or clinical trials. Such clinical results are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or top-line results 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 and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. 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. Preliminary or “top line” 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 announced. As a result, interim, “top-line,” and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. It is also difficult to predict the timing of announcing interim results.

Accordingly, any positive results from our preclinical studies and ongoing and future clinical trials of our product candidates may not necessarily be predictive of the results from required later clinical trials. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our planned preclinical studies or any future clinical trials according to our current development timeline, the positive results from such preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be replicated in subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trial results.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidate performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or similar regulatory approval.

Additionally, our ongoing clinical trial utilizes an “open-label” trial design, as may be the case in planned future clinical trials. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug 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 when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

If the clinical updates, or the interim, "top-line", 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, our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition may be harmed.

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, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies 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 products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or 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.

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the UK held a referendum in which a majority of voters approved an exit from the EU, or Brexit, and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which EU pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the UK, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore currently aligns in the most part with EU regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. For example, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, which became effective in the EU on January 31, 2022 and provides for a streamlined clinical trial application and assessment procedure covering multiple EU Member States, has not been implemented into UK law, and a separate application will need to be submitted for clinical trial authorization in the UK. The separate, and potentially diverging, regulatory regimes between Great Britain and the EU may increase our regulatory burden of applying for and obtaining authorization in Great Britain and the EU.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will require post-market surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician 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 or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves 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 continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and unannounced inspections by the FDA and state agencies to assess compliance with cGMPs and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application and previous responses to inspectional observations. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. In addition, the FDA could require us to conduct another study to obtain additional safety or biomarker information.

Further, we will be required to comply with FDA's promotion and advertising rules, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet and social media. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted

off-label may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, but the FDA does restrict manufacturers' communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party suppliers or 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 studies 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’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. We 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. 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.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community, adversely affecting our ability to achieve our commercial and financial projections.

The use of engineered gamma delta T cells as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community. We expect physicians in the large bone marrow transplant centers to be particularly important to the market acceptance of our products and we may not be able to educate them on the benefits of using our product candidates for many reasons. Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.

Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors including governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations and commercial payors, among others. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates. For further discussion on coverage and reimbursement matters, see the section entitled “Business–Government Regulation and Product Approval–Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance.

Third-party payors decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, if the resulting reimbursement rates are insufficient, hospitals may not approve our product for use in their facility or third-party payors may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the hospital or administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used. Further, from time to time, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revises the reimbursement systems used to reimburse health care providers, including the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Outpatient Prospective Payment System, which may result in reduced Medicare payments. In some cases, private third-party payers rely on all or portions of Medicare payment systems to determine payment rates. Changes to government healthcare programs that reduce payments under these programs may negatively impact payments from private third-party payers and reduce the willingness of physicians to use our product candidates.

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Because our product candidate may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow-up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidate. Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in

healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures are expected to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for certain pharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures. Specifically, there have been several United States Congressional inquiries and federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. 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. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs. Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives.

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. Increased efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidate. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. Some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other EU member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. We expect downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing to continue. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

The advancement of healthcare reform may negatively impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. For further discussion on healthcare reform matters, see the section entitled “Business – Government Regulation and Product Approval – Healthcare Reform” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical and biologics pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in various congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and biosimilars, including the standards for interchangeability of biological products, facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products, clarify existing requirements and procedures related to the review and submission of BLAs, and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug and biosimilar competition.

We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. Federal Government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Additional patent applications have been filed, and we anticipate additional patent applications will be filed, both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict:

•

the degree and range of protection any issued patents will afford us against competitors including whether third parties will find ways to invalidate or otherwise circumvent our patents;

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as CAR-based 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 that the claims in our pending patent applications covering composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (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.” 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.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope thereof, for example through inter partes review (IPR) post-grant review or ex parte reexamination before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, which may result in such patents being cancelled, narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. United States patent applications containing or that at any time contained a claim not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013 are subject to the “first to file” system implemented by the America Invents Act (2011).

This first to file system will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that it was the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for United States 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 United States 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 United States patent laws, including new procedures for challenging patent applications and issued patents.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to product components and processes for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We may require access to additional intellectual property to develop our current or future product candidates. Accordingly, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.


Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share	ACET	The Nasdaq Global Market


		Page
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS		3

PART I		5
Item 1.	Business	5
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	35
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	79
Item 2.	Properties	79
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	79
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	79

PART II		80
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	80
Item 6.	[Reserved]	80
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	81
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	91
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	91
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	91
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	91
Item 9B.	Other Information	92
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions That Prevent Inspections	92

PART III		93
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	93
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	93
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	93
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	93
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	93

PART IV		94
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	94
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	110


☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐
Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒
		Emerging growth company	☒