As previously disclosed on July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) entered into on January 2, 2019. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, (i) a subsidiary of Ohr merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (renamed as “NeuBase Corporation”) continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was renamed as “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” (the “Merger”).

For accounting purposes, the Merger is treated as a “reverse asset acquisition” under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) and Legacy NeuBase is considered the acquirer. Accordingly, Legacy NeuBase’s historical results of operations will replace the Company’s (as defined below) historical results of operations for all periods prior to the Merger and, for all periods following the Merger, the results of operations of the combined company will be included in the Company’s financial statements.

This annual report on Form 10-K relates to the Company’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 and is therefore the Company’s first periodic report that includes results of operations for the combined company, including Legacy NeuBase.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to the “Company,” the “combined company,” “we,” “our” or “us” in this reportForm 10-K refer to NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries, references to “NeuBase” refer to the Company following the completion of the Merger and references to “Ohr” refer to the Company prior to the completion of the Merger.

Except as otherwise noted, references to “common stock” in this reportForm 10-K refer to common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of the Company.

PART I.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”) contains “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in Item 1—”“Business,” Item 1.A—”“Risk Factors” and Item 7—”“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”,Operations,” but appear throughout thethis Form 10-K. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our potential product offerings, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts or statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. These statements are often identified by the use of words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “opportunity,” “plan,” “potential,” “predicts,” “seek,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These forward-looking statements are based on the expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information currently available to management, all of which are subject to change. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that are difficult to predict and could cause our actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially and adversely from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those discussed under Item 1.A—”“Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K. Furthermore, such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.

​

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”(“NeuBase”,“Company”, “we”, “us” and “our”) is a biotechnology company focused on developing next generationsignificantly reducing the burden of untreatable morbidity and mortality across the globe caused by rare and common diseases.

To achieve this goal, we have designed, built, and validated a new precision genetic medicines platform technology able to uniquely drug the double-stranded human genome and address disease at the root of causality without many of the limitations of early precision genetic medicine technologies.

Overview

Most diseases remain undruggable with current therapeutic modalities, leaving millions of patients with limited options. These include rare diseases, cancers, common chronic and infectious diseases. Most diseases are genetic, in whole or in part, underscoring the critical importance of new medicines that can drug the human genome for the future of health. Yet the genome has been difficult to target with therapies due to its double-stranded structure, which evolved to protect the fidelity of this essential blueprint of life.

Genes in the genome are “transcribed” into RNA which are then usually “translated” into proteins. As a result of the historical inability to drug the genome directly to address root causality, the pharmaceutical industry moved downstream, initially working to drug the protein products of genes. The complexity associated with drugging proteins, each of which is a unique and often dynamic molecular entity, has resulted in a drug development process that is commonly inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive with low probabilities of success. This strategy has, in part, resulted in high drug prices and a high remaining burden of unmet patient need.

These issues could potentially be resolved by targeting the genetic material itself, instead of downstream protein products. Precision genetic medicines represent a relatively new class of therapies that target genetic sequences that are the root cause of diseases. While early precision genetic medicines companies have proven that human disease can be addressed at the genetic level, the nascent field remains fragmented with most technologies only able to address a single causal genetic mechanism (either gain-of-function, change-of-function, or loss-of-function of a gene). Most technologies still act downstream at the RNA level and exhibit limitations relating to delivery, tolerability, selectivity, manufacturability, durability of effect and scalability.

We have designed, built, and validated a new technology platform that can uniquely Drug the Genome™ to address the three disease-causing mechanisms (i.e., gain-of-function, change-of-function, or loss-of-function of a gene) without the limitations of early precision genetic medicines. Our technology is predicated on synthetic peptide-nucleic acid (“PNA”) chemistry and can directly engage the genome in a sequence-specific manner and potentially address root causality of diseases. These compounds operate by temporarily engaging the genome (or single and double-stranded RNA targets, if desired) and interacting with cellular machinery that process mutant genes to halt their ability to manifest a disease. We have now repeatedly demonstrated, in proof-of-concept preclinical animal studies the ability to address multiple disease-causing genes and different causal mechanisms to resolve the disease state without the limitations of early genetic medicine technologies. These limitations, and the data that illustrates that we have likely engineered them out of our platform to potentially unlock broad impact across many diseases, are:

Validating data. Preclinical non-human primate (“NHP”) data presented in FY2020 illustrated the ability of a 5mg/kg systemic injection of the delivery shuttle to distribute into every tissue examined at therapeutically relevant concentrations, defined as concentrations which show activity in patient-derived cell lines when coupled to a pharmacophore. In FY2021, we presented data illustrating that the delivery shuttle conjugated to a NT-0200 program compound could be injected subcutaneously into the HSA^LR transgenic animal model of myotonic dystrophy type 1 (“DM1”) and achieve both molecular and functional rescue of myotonia in the distant tibialis anterior muscle group in the transgenic animal. Also, in FY2021 we presented data that illustrate that subcutaneous injection of the same delivery shuttle conjugated to a compound for the NT-0100 program into the zQ175 transgenic animal model of Huntington’s disease (“HD”) could, within 7 days from first dose, cross the blood-brain barrier in sufficient concentrations to engage the mutant gene target and reduce the resultant protein levels from whole brain isolates to a statistically significant degree. Delivery of drugs across the blood-brain barrier and into muscle via a systemic route has been a significant challenge in the industry. More recently, in FY2022 we presented data illustrating that a single 30 mg/kg intravenous injection of our lead DM1 development candidate (NT-0231.F) in wild-type BALB/c mice was cleared rapidly from the systemic compartment and demonstrated rapid and wide distribution into the tibialis anterior muscle, heart muscle, and brain tissues. NT-0231.F rapidly cleared the plasma, and each tissue evaluated displayed an extended elimination phase with tissue concentrations measurable for at least four weeks following a single intravenous dose administration. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2022 we completed a three-month pharmacokinetic (“PK”) study of NT-0231.F in NHPs illustrating that we could achieve pharmacologically active concentrations to skeletal muscles after a single intravenous (IV) injection of 6 mg/kg and 14 mg/kg. Also in FY2022, we presented data illustrating that twice-weekly subcutaneous injections over an 8-week period of a NT-0100 program compound into the R6/2 Huntington’s disease transgenic animal model were able to penetrate into the brain and reduce mutant Huntingtin protein levels throughout all brain regions with statistical significance.

Validating data. We have illustrated good tolerability of a variety of compounds across our various programs in rodent and NHP animal models across FY2020, FY2021 and FY2022, with both single and multi-dose administration. This data includes a lack of an obvious acute immune response in NHPs which has been seen with other early precision genetic medicines. Most recently, we completed a series of exploratory toxicology studies with our lead DM1 candidate, NT-0231.F, that illustrated a lack of cytokine activity in NHPs after IV injection at and below the maximum tolerated dose, negative Ames and in vitro micronucleus tests, and a maximum tolerated dose in NHPs and rats projected to be in excess of the projected human equivalent dose.

Validating data. In FY2021, we presented data illustrating that we could achieve near-perfect selectivity in engaging the mutant G12D copy of the KRAS gene vs. the wild-type copy and inhibiting transcription and translation of the resultant mutant protein production in vitro. When these compounds are delivered to xenograft animal models with KRAS-mutation driven tumors, significant tumor growth reductions and signaling through downstream effectors of the KRAS pathway were measured. In FY2021, we also presented data that illustrated statistically significant allele-selective knock-down of mutant Huntingtin (“HTT”) protein vs. the healthy wild-type protein after subcutaneous injection into the zQ175 transgenic animal model.

Validating data. In FY2021, we nominated a development candidate for our DM1 program and initiated manufacturing scale up with several contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) across the globe. Within a period of months, for relatively low cost compared to the investment required to build bespoke manufacturing facilities, we established redundancy in manufacturing for GLP and GMP materials at scale.

Validating data. We illustrated in preclinical studies in FY2020 that our delivery shuttle, when delivered systemically into NHPs, is rapidly taken up into tissues across the body and is very slowly eliminated via the kidneys. Elimination of the delivery shuttle occurred at approximately 4% of the administered dose over the course of one week, promising an enduring response. More recently, in FY2022 we presented data illustrating that a single 30 mg/kg intravenous injection of NT-0231.F in wild-type BALB/c mice was cleared rapidly from the systemic compartment and demonstrated rapid and wide distribution into the tibialis anterior muscle, heart muscle, and brain tissues. NT-0231.F rapidly cleared the plasma, and each tissue evaluated displayed an extended elimination phase with tissue concentrations measurable for at least four weeks following a single intravenous dose administration. Most recently, we completed a single dose 3-month NHP PK study, which illustrated rapid uptake from the systemic compartment, robust exposures across a variety of tissues consistent with our mouse PK results, and tissue-specific elimination rates with near full clearance in most tissues examined.

Validating data. In FY2021, we launched a new set of programs in oncology targeting the most prevalent and currently undruggable KRAS mutations. The development of a series of hits was achieved with an order of magnitude higher efficiency than with our first two programs based on a deeper understanding of the structure-activity relationships uncovered in our initial programs and use of the same delivery shuttle for seamless in vivo pharmacologic testing.

As further validation of the PATrOL™ platform’s capabilities, in FY2021, we described data illustrating that our first-in-class platform technology can address various types of causal insults by Drugging the Genome™ in animal models of a variety of human diseases after patient-friendly routes of administration and did so in a well-tolerated manner. In FY2022, we presented data illustrating that a single intramuscular dose of NT-0231.F is pharmacologically active in the muscle and drives molecular and functional rescue in the HSA^LR model, including splice rescue, nuclear aggregate resolution, and myotonia (delayed muscle relaxation after contraction) reversal. A single intravenous dose of NT-0231.F or multiple subcutaneous doses over a 28-day period broadly rescued splicing, including the chloride channel (Clcn1) transcript, and reversed myotonia in the model. A single intravenous dose of NT-0231.F provided initial splice rescue at around two weeks, with significant splice rescue around three weeks. Myotonia reversal was achieved at around four weeks, with effects enduring to at least six weeks. A time course of multiple subcutaneous doses across increasing concentrations of NT-0231.F was also investigated and showed splice rescue and myotonia reversal in a dose-responsive manner, illustrating feasibility of the differentiated and patient-friendly subcutaneous route.

The NeuBase Opportunity

Many diseases remain undruggable with current therapeutic modalities. These include rare diseases, cancers, common, chronic and infectious diseases. Most diseases are driven by functional genetic variants (including mutations). We are advancing first-in-class

ultra-precision genetic medicines to Drug the Genome™ and address disease at its root cause with the goal of helping potentially millions of patients who currently have no therapeutic options.

Historically, malfunctioning proteins (the products of malfunctioning genes) have been targeted by small molecules, antibodies, or protein replacement therapies to treat rare genetic diseasesaddress disease states. The fundamental challenge with these strategies has been related to a lack of an ability to accurately model protein structures and cancers causedthe associated structural dynamics in an easy and high-throughput manner so that drugs could be intelligently designed. In addition, biologics have been hampered by mutant genes. Given that perhapsdelivery challenges, such as accessibility to the organ, cell type or subcellular compartment where the therapy is required to resolve functionality and by immunogenicity related to delivering a foreign antigenic therapy into the body. Recent advances in computational methods promise to enable accurate protein structure modeling in a high-throughput manner allowing intelligently designed protein-targeting medicines. While this potentially accelerates early target engagement activities, challenges related to accurately predicting and addressing structural dynamics of the target and off-target engagement with the multitude of other molecules in the body remain daunting. Delivery challenges and immunogenicity with large molecular weight biologics persist. The challenges of drug development targeting proteins have manifested themselves in high drug pricing in the market and large remaining unmet needs for patients.

In almost every human disease, has a genetic component,variant is introduced into a cell, either through inheritance or de novo (for example, by a mutagen) at some point in development that causes the normal cellular processes to go awry. Diseases can either be completely driven by such a single genetic variant (termed a “mutation”) or by individual or combinations of several variants (often referred to as “functional variants”) often with environmental triggers.

Sequencing of the human genome set the stage for the advent of drugs that can target nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) upstream of proteins and closer to the root of disease causality. The world’s collective knowledge of the human genome, and our ability to apply that knowledge to the development of medicines that can cure disease and mitigate suffering, has resulted in a new category of therapeutic commonly referred to as “precision genetic medicines.” In the approximately 20 years since the scientific community has delivered the first draft of the human genome sequence, efforts across the globe have identified the genetic variants that cause thousands of different diseases and consolidated this variant information into accessible databases. In parallel, a molecular diagnostics industry has matured to enable many patients to get access to the precise genetic variant that causes their disease. Today, because of these advances, it is possible to know the gene and sequence variants that must be targeted for a specific disease indication, and it is also possible to identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, thus giving rise to the precision genetic medicines industry.

In parallel, a computational infrastructure has been developed that allows precision genetic medicines companies to house and query the genome to design medicines that precisely target genes that cause disease and reduce or eliminate engagement of these drugs with other highly similar sequences. Precision genetic medicines can target either DNA or RNA. Each cell in the human body contains two copies of the approximately 3 billion letter “haploid” genetic code, one copy inherited from each parent. At conception, a single fertilized egg, containing a complete approximately 6 billion letter “diploid” genome will contain all the necessary hereditary information to give rise to a complete human being. Each cell divides into daughter cells as an individual grows and develops and, through the cell division process, receives a replicate of the genome. Upon adulthood, a human being is comprised of trillions of individual nucleated cells, each of which is operating with a diploid genome that controls its function in the complete organism by activating various genes in various combinations at various times. Computational expertise and infrastructure have enabled the industry.

The human genome is double-stranded, an evolutionary mechanism thought to have arisen to protect this essential molecule against insult and degradation. This same protective mechanism has made directly drugging the genome difficult. Over the past decade, tremendous progress has been made in targeting genes, instead of proteins, to address diseases. Targeting nucleic acids allows one to utilize nature’s own digital information encoding system, Watson-Crick nucleobase binding, which forms the basis of the double-helix of DNA, to engage an exact genetic target with a genetic medicine. Most early strategies target disease processes downstream of the double-stranded human genome primarily because early technologies cannot access the double-stranded genome. Thus, most precision genetic medicines focus on drugging RNA and are constrained to stretches of accessible single stranded portions of a target RNA.

Genes in the genome are “transcribed” into RNA molecules, which are processed by splicing events that remove intervening sequences (“introns”) and often various combinations of protein coding sequences (“exons”), into mature messenger RNAs (“mRNA”) to form a diversity of molecules from each gene. In addition, the rate of transcription of each gene in each cell type and at each time in development, balanced with the metabolism of each mRNA molecule, which often differs between transcripts, adds additional complexity to targeting RNA in disease conditions. These mRNA species are then generally translated into proteins. Each

mRNA molecule can be translated into many protein molecules before it is eventually degraded. After a protein is made, it often goes through a process of “post-translational” modification, which often trims the protein and/or adds modifications such as sugar or phosphate groups onto the proteins. Thus, a single mutant gene (present in either one or two copies in most diseases) outputs many different mRNA molecules and in turn, a diversity of protein molecules with additional structural and functional complexities derived from alternative splicing. Thus, we believe that grappling with disease at the protein or RNA level is inherently more complex than targeting the DNA itself, and due to our unique ability to engage the double-stranded genome to modulate gene output and/or function, we believe that we have a more scalable and differentiated platform technologyopportunity.

Efforts to target genes that contain disease-causing variants at the RNA and DNA level have illustrated human clinical benefit in altering the natural history of several diseases. Genetic medicines generally fall into three separate categories, each being developed by various separate companies: gene silencing, gene replacement and gene editing. It is our belief that, unlike any other company to date, NeuBase has the potential to unify the field. Gene silencing is primarily centered on degrading the target transcript, most often using antisense oligonucleotides (“ASOs”) or RNA interference (“RNAi”). Activating or replacing a gene is being done by gene therapy and mRNA replacement. Changing the function of a gene can be done using splice modification or emerging DNA and RNA editing technologies. These therapies have transformed care for a handful of genetic and infectious diseases and proven that precision genetic medicines can resolve disease upstream of proteins.

In general, addressing each of the three main pathogenic mechanisms is done using a distinct technology, though challenges have been encountered, such as delivery challenges due to the larger size and negatively charged backbones of first-generation genetic medicines therapies. For example, the scavenger receptors in the liver clear circulating negatively charged modified nucleic acids, and tolerability issues, such as immunogenicity, have been seen. While delivery modalities of first-generation genetic medicines continue to improve with, for example, antibody-mediated delivery, they also present new manufacturing and immunogenicity complexities. Delivery of non-permanent mRNA replacement technologies also continue to improve, promising the potential to eliminate the need to encapsulate transcripts to protect them from degradation during circulation, but tissue targeting challenges, immunogenicity and liver clearance issues will likely persist. Outside of delivery, tolerability and manufacturing challenges, first-generation genetic medicines have exhibited selectivity challenges as they are often unable to adequately discriminate between small mutations and normal gene sequences.

Medicines that target DNA are being developed in the community, with gene replacement and gene editing showing clinical successes. These approaches are meant to be permanent, which on the one hand would allow patients to live disease-free lives, but on the other hand pose challenges related to the level of rigor necessary to ensure mistakes do not occur. Gene replacement is generally currently done using viral vector-delivered gene therapies. Gene therapy can often be administered only once because patients exhibit an immune response against the viral delivery vectors. Further, gene therapy often results in heterogeneous cellular distribution. Non-viral delivery technologies are improving, which may allow DNA replacement strategies for loss-of-function conditions to mature more rapidly in the coming years. Gene editing technologies have also recently shown human in vivo clinical activity and early tolerability, but issues related to off-target editing and permanent modifications to the germ cells of patients warrant caution in developing gene editing solutions. Current strategies are also defined by delivering large molecular complexes, which are difficult to distribute and often include or likely produce antigenic protein complexes, relegating most gene editing activities to ex vivo cell editing and strategies, followed by cell therapy. Gene therapy and gene editing have limitations related to delivery of high molecular weight molecules and accessing tissues at the sites of pathology, immunogenicity, durability, and safety.

We have an opportunity, with our technology platform, to scale our proprietary genetic medicines that target mutant genes at their root cause by Drugging the Genome™. We have shown in preclinical proof-of-concept studies that the platform technology can address most causal mechanisms of disease at the genetic level by gene silencing, gene editing or gene activating, which leads to the potential of a unifying platform for the industry. Because we can drug the genome upstream of the complexity that occurs during transcription, splicing, translation and post-translational processes, and by using common chemistry to engage a common target type, there are opportunities to scale across indications.

structures, such as imperfect hairpins (double stranded RNA targets which are folded upon themselves). In programs where we are drugging an RNA, this allows us to potentially access regions of the target molecule which may be unique in cellssecondary structure relative to the wild-type RNA to allow enhanced selectivity for the target.

Importantly, all these nucleobases which allow sequence-specific recognition of a gene within a target double-stranded nucleic acid are required to be used in combination with our neutral-charged backbone. Without the backbone, the nucleobases do not have the ability to engage utilizing these various binding modes.

Neutral-Charged Backbone. PNAs form the predicate chemistry for our backbones. The key differentiator between a PNA backbone and inhibitmost traditional nucleic acid backbones (like the backbones in DNA and RNA) or modified backbones (like the backbones that are used by various companies in the genetic medicines space) is that the PNA backbone is neutral (not anionic) in charge and is helical in its secondary structure. PNAs use a synthetic backbone subunit (“monomer”), which in our construction is charge-neutral and characterized by high binding affinity to a nucleic acid target. The high binding affinity is due in part to the neutral charge that does not repulse its target nucleic acid, but also due to our ability to induce helicity through backbone modifications and thereby reduce the energy requirement necessary to engage a nucleic acid target. These features allow the nucleobases to perform in the required manner to either invade or form triplex structures. Another major differentiator of our backbone technology is, we believe, industry leading sequence selectivity of target engagement imparted by the “rigidity” of the backbone, which confers an intolerance for sequence mismatches. This manifests in an advantage to better differentiate mutant gene sequences from their wild-type counterparts, and in potentially reducing OTEs with highly similar sequences elsewhere in the genome. The backbones have high stability in biological fluids and are resistant to protease and nuclease digestion, contributing to their enduring presence in tissues after systemic administration and, we believe, to their ability to be translated into defective proteins.

redistribute in and out of tissues over time via the circulatory system. PNA backbones have been described in the literature and by us to not trigger an innate nor acquired immune response, a key limiter of other precision genetic medicines, and potentially allow routine dosing.

We believe we are a leader in the discovery and development of the classnext generation of RNA-targeted ASO drugs called peptide nucleic acids (“PNAs”)genetic medicines. We have exclusively licensed and developed proprietary innovations around PNAs that potentially enable them to be used as pharmaceuticals to address most causal mechanisms of disease by Drugging the Genome™. Our PNAs can modulate the machinery controlling gene function and fidelity, exhibit wide bio-distribution after systemic administration, including into the brain, a favorable tolerability profile, and high sequence selectivity. Our PATrOL™-enabled precision genetic medicines may be manufactured via well-commoditized peptide synthetic methods in a GMP setting. We have established a decentralized, outsourced, and cost-effective global supply and manufacturing infrastructure to allow rapid scaling across indications.

Novel Delivery Shuttles. The third component of our modular platform is a proprietary gamma Peptide-nucleic acid AnTisense OLigonucleotide (“delivery technology that works in conjunction with the backbone chemistry to enable systemic administration and achieve broad biodistribution. The delivery shuttle is of low molecular weight, approximately 1.5 kD in size, synthetic in nature, likely non-immunogenic and is likely cell, tissue, and species agnostic in its ability to delivery our neutral water-soluble compounds into the cytoplasm or nucleus. We have previously (in FY2020) presented data with our first delivery shuttle in NHPs, which described systemic administration via an intravenous route having an in-circulation half-life of approximately 1.5 hours during which time the shuttle is taken up into every tissue in the body, including into the brain, within 4 hours post single-dose. Elimination is primarily through the renal system, and occurs slowly, with only approximately 4% of the administered dose excreted over the course of 7 days after single-dose injection. This delivery shuttle also appears to rapidly pass through the cell membranes of all cell types tested and, when coupled to a pharmacophore, engage the genetic target in less than 24 hours (earliest timepoint tested) in both cell culture and after systemic administration in vivo. We disseminated data illustrating this feature in both the DM1 and HD programs after a subcutaneous injection in FY2021. This delivery technology is currently being used for several of our therapeutic programs but does not preclude us from using various delivery technologies with our backbones.

The Therapeutic Pipeline

We are developing precision genetic medicines targeting rare, monogenic diseases for which there are no approved therapies, as well as more common genetic disorders, including cancers that are resistant to current therapeutic approaches. Our pipeline includes therapeutic candidates for the treatment of DM1, HD, and cancer-driving point mutations in KRAS, G12V and G12D, which are involved in many tumor types and have historically been “undruggable” (Figure 4).

We believe the potential advantages of our KRAS inhibitors include:

The path forward in CY2023. As announced in October 2022, the Company plans to reduce activities and pursue partnerships for this gene silencing program.

Gene Editing Programs

The next wave of the Company’s pipeline programs is focused on in vivo genome editing using PATrOL™-based synthetic genome-targeting chemistry, which can recruit the body’s own editing machinery to correct mutations that cause disease. This approach harnesses millennia of evolution to enable high-fidelity genome editing. The human body’s endogenous DNA repair machinery has been projected to edit up to one million acquired mutations per cell in each of the trillions of cells in the body, speaking to the potential robustness and fidelity of this gene editing approach versus other approaches.

Our exclusively licensed technology has been proven to achieve in vivo editing in various diseases and has been repeatedly published in top-tier journals such as Nature and Science. The PATrOL™ editors are differentiated from CRISPR/Cas-derived base editors (BEs) in the areas of fidelity by using three layers of sequence selectivity, tolerability without double-stranded breaks or bystander edits, versatility in non-viral delivery options, and in the overall type and thus number of mutations that can be resolved. PATrOL™ editors are like prime editors (PEs) in that they are not dependent on protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) flanking sequences, they can edit transversions as well as transitions, and they can repair insertions and deletions.

We project PATrOL™ editors can potentially address up to ~90% of all known human mutations. In contrast, BEs, in aggregate across all current versions of CRISPR/Cas nucleases (and all companies employing them), can currently only address ~ 20% of all know human mutations due to sequence and editing constraints.

The synthetic chemistry employed by PATrOL™ editors has low molecular weight and thus is more easily packaged for delivery. It is well described to be non-immunogenic, enabling re-dosing to increase editing efficiency and address tissue turnover. The ideal use case for PATrOL™ editors is for in vivo correction of prevalent causal variants that cannot be addressed by BEs, such as transversions and insertion / deletion events. Due to the lack of acquired immunogenicity that likely will plague BEs and PEs, our solution has the potential to address durability issues faced by other editors.

In summary, the differentiators of the PATrOL™ editing technology are:

On October 21, 2022, in line with our strategic restructuring to expand our focus to include the advancement of our platform into gene editing, we announced that we entered into a research agreement with a global healthcare company, pursuant to which such global healthcare company will evaluate our PATrOL™ platform for three monogenic genetic diseases and cancer.

The PATrOL™ platform allows for a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates because of manufacturing consistency and because we are not constrained by folded regions ofwill collaborate on the target RNA molecule (secondary structures). The peptide backbone of our ASOs is rigid, and once linked together to form a series of backbone subunits, forms a single pre-organized structure. At a more detailed level, each subunit of the peptide backbone has only a single chiral center – a point in the chemical structure where the conformation of the backbone could fluctuate – and this chiral center is locked into one conformation and thus pre-organized to form only a single conformation or stereoisomer. A stereoisomer is a term used in the ASO therapeutics field to mean a string of backbone subunits (usually sugars or modified sugars) with nuclear bases attached that are linked together into a specific sequence that matches (complements) the target sequence, but because of the nature of the backbone subunits used, the drug assumes various conformations often with varying affinity for the target sequence. These stereoisomers often require a manufacturing step to purify the heterogeneous mixture of conformations into a more homogenous mixture or even a single conformation of the drug in order to obtain the hoped-for therapeutic effect. Our PNAs assume only a single conformation with any constellation of nuclear bases added to the backbone or any oligomer length. This backbone also has a neutral charge, as opposed to the negatively charged backbones of DNA and RNA. This neutral charge allows our ASO to open up RNAs which are folded upon themselves and bind to their target sequence. This potentially accelerates identificationevaluation of drug candidates which have the desired activity.for three undisclosed indications. We are also identifying and evaluating multiple indications for possible future development, and we expect to provide further details during fiscal year 2023 regarding our gene editing pipeline.

In addition to the backbone conformational purity that allows for a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates, we have a kit of proprietary bi-facial or bi-specific nucleotides (traditional nucleotides only have a single binding face and thus are restricted to only binding single-stranded RNA targets), which can be used in various combinations to access RNA secondary structures (double-stranded RNA targets which are folded upon themselves) such as hairpins. This allows us to access regions of the target transcript that may be unique in secondary structure to allow enhanced selectivity for the target (mutant) RNA vs. the normal RNA. Enhanced selectivity for mutant RNAs vs. normal RNAs is critical as normal RNAs are generally required for effective functioning of the cell. These bi-specific nucleotides can potentially also target genomic loci (specific, fixed position on a chromosome where a particular gene or genetic marker is located) and microRNAs (small non-coding RNA molecule) in their double stranded form.

In addition to the backbone and modified nuclear bases, the platform toolkit includes linker technology which, when added to both ends of the PNAs, allow cooperative binding between individual drug molecules once they are engaged with the target RNA to form longer and more tightly bound drugs.

The final component of the platform is a chemical moiety, which is used to decorate the peptide backbone in a proprietary manner and allows the PNAs to penetrate cell membranes and distribute throughout the body when administered systemically.

This toolkit of components forms the PATrOL™ platform and allows us to manufacture genome and transcript-specific PNAs for screening against targets of interest.

Summary

We are currently focused on therapeutic areas in which we believe our drug candidatesdrugs will provide the greatest benefit with a significant market opportunity andopportunity. We intend to utilize our technology to build out a pipeline of custom designed therapeutics for additional high-value disease targets. We are developing several preclinical programs using our PATrOL™ platform, including: NT0100, targeted at Huntington’s Disease (“HD”), a repeat expansion disorder; and NT0200, targeted at type 1 myotonic dystrophy (“DM1”). Preclinical studies are being conducted to evaluate both the PATrOL™ platform technology broadly, as well as our program candidates in the areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and we expect to report the results from those studies beginning in the first calendar quarter of 2020 and in the second calendar quarter of 2020. In addition, we plan to continue developing our emerging pipeline of other assets that target primary and secondary RNA structure and genomic DNA, which may afford us a unique market advantage across a variety of rare diseases and oncology targets.

Using our PATrOL™ platform, we believe we can create ASOs that have distinct potential advantages over other chemical entities currently in the market or in development for gene silencing applications. These potential advantages include, among others: a backbone that has only one chiral center and thus forms only one stereoisomer; the ability of the PNA backbone to intercalate (insert into), open up secondary (RNA folded upon itself) and tertiary structures (RNA molecules that interact with other RNA molecules in the cell) and bind within these double-stranded RNAs in a highly selective manner; a proprietary set of engineered nuclear bases to increase selectivity to specific target sequences including secondary and tertiary structures that has been licensed exclusively from Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”); technology to allow self-assembly of our small gamma peptide-nucleic acid (“gamma-PNA”) at the RNA target to increase selectivity, which has been licensed exclusively from CMU; the ability to modulate cell permeability and be broadly distributed across the body when administered systemically; the lack of innate or acquired immune responses of similar gamma-PNAs in preclinical models; and potential for low toxicity based on previousin vivo studies in rodent models. With these advantages, we believe our PATrOL™ platform-enabled therapies can potentially address a multitude of rare genetic diseases and cancer, among other indications.

Business Strategy

We employ a rational approach to selecting disease targets, considering many scientific, technical, business and indication-specific factors before choosing each indication. We intend to build a diverse portfolio of drugs custom-designed to treat a variety of health conditions, with an emphasis on rare genetic diseases and cancer. A key component of this strategy is continuing to improve the scientific understanding of our platform technology and programs, including how various components of our platform technology perform, and our drug candidates impact the biological processes of the target diseases, so that we can utilize this information to reduce risk in our future programs and indications. In addition, with our expertise in discovering and characterizing novel antisense drugs, we believe that our scientists can optimize the properties of our PATrOL™-enabled drug candidates for use with particular targets that we determine to be of high value.

The depth of our knowledge and expertise with gamma-PNA, bifacial nucleotides, engineered nucleotides, genetics and genomics and therapeutic development of first-in-class modalities provides potential flexibility to determine the optimal development and commercialization strategy to maximize the near and longer-term value of our drug candidates.

We have distinctleverage appropriate partnering strategies that we plan to employ based on the specific drug candidate, therapeutic area expertise, and resources potential partners may bring to a collaboration. For some drug candidates, we may choose to develop and, if approved, commercialize them ourselves or through our affiliates. For other drug candidates, we may form single or multi assetmulti-asset partnerships leveraging our partners’ global expertise and resources needed to support large commercial opportunities.

In October 2022, we announced a strategic restructuring to expand our focus to include the advancement of the differentiated gene editing capabilities of our platform. As part of the development pipeline shift to gene editing, we will defer preclinical activities for our DM1, HD, and KRAS programs, hold plans to submit an IND application for DM1 to the FDA, and pursue collaborative initiatives, including partnerships, for these programs.

Industry Segment BackgroundAs we focus on the advancement of our gene editing platform, we are currently identifying and evaluating multiple indications for potential future development. We are also working with a global healthcare company, pursuant to the research collaboration agreement the Company announced in October 2022, to evaluate drug candidates for three monogenic genetic diseases. We expect to provide further details during fiscal year 2023 regarding our gene editing pipeline.

We plan to attend various scientific and medical conferences in CY2023 where we plan to present the results of the foregoing activities described above.

Rare Genetic DiseasesOverall, using our PATrOL™ platform, we believe we can create therapies that may have distinct advantages over other chemical entities currently in the market or in development for precision genetic medicine applications to modulate mutant genes and improve a clinical trait or disorder. We employ a rational approach to selecting disease targets, considering many scientific, technical, business and indication-specific factors before choosing each indication. We intend to build a diverse portfolio of therapies to treat a variety of health conditions.

Globally, there are thousandsWe believe the depth of genetic diseases, most of which lack any therapeutic options. In addition, rare genetic diseases are often particularly severe, debilitating or fatal. Traditionally,our knowledge and expertise with PNAs, engineered nucleotides, genetics, genomics and therapeutic development for each rare genetic disorder has been approached with a uniqueof first-in-class modalities allows us to determine the optimal development and commercialization strategy which is inefficient, as there are thousandsto maximize the near and longer-term value of diseases that need treatment solutions. The collective population of people with rare diseases stands to benefit profoundly from the emergence of a scalable and modular treatment development platform that allows for a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates to address these conditions cohesively.

Mutated proteins resulting from errors in deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences cause many rare genetic diseases and cancer. DNA in each cell of the body is transcribed into pre-RNA, which is then processed (spliced) into mRNA which is exported into the cytoplasm of the cell and translated into protein. This is termed the “central dogma” of biology. Therefore, when errors in a DNA sequence occur, they are propagated to RNAs and can become a damaging protein. ASOs can inactivate target RNAs before they can produce harmful proteins by binding them in a sequence-specific manner, which can potentially delay disease progression or even eliminate genetic disease symptoms. ASOs designed to target known disease-related mutant RNA sequences could potentially address any dominantly inherited genetic disease caused by a single genetic mutation. Similarly, applications in modifying splicing of pre-RNA in the nucleus of the cell could be developed to exclude damaging exons from the final mRNA product. We also believe that given the ability of PNAs to insert into double stranded DNA and RNA targets, we can potentially pursue the development of drug candidates that target these types of nucleic acid sequences uniquely.

our therapeutic programs. We believe the breadth of the PATrOL™ platform gives us the ability to potentially address thousands of inherited genetic diseases. The technology may also allow us to target and inactivate gain-of-function mutations by sequestering excess transcripts, and by inactivating transcripts with change-of-function mutations in them (vs. their wild-type or normal counterparts). The technology may also allow us to address targets in recessive disease and haploinsufficiencies by altering splicing to remove damaging exons/mutations. Various fields of use are available, including in oncology by reducing expression of activated oncogenes or modifying gene regulation by targeting microRNAs, for example, in complex genetic disease where subtle gene variants predispose to downstream diseases together with environmental triggers, or potentially in genome editing.

ASO Therapies

ASO therapies have been in development for several decades and are largely comprised of chemically modified, short-length RNA or DNA strands, commonly known as oligonucleotides. Oligonucleotides are comprised of a sequence of nucleotides—the building blocks of RNA and DNA—that are linked together by a backbone of chemical bonds. In nucleic acid molecules that have not been modified for therapeutic use, the nucleotides are linked by phosphodiester (“PO”) bonds. Such unmodified nucleic acid molecules are unsuitable for use as therapeutics, because they are rapidly degraded by enzymes called nucleases which are widely distributed in the human body, are rapidly cleared by the kidneys and are taken up poorly by targeted cells. The industry has employed chemical modifications of the nucleotides and PO bonds that improve the stability, biodistribution and cellular uptake of nucleic acid therapeutics.

Challenges of Historical ASOs

ASOs can be highly specific to a singular RNA sequence, decreasing the chance of potentially toxic off-target effects. When designed properly, ASOs target exactly one mutated RNA sequence, corresponding directly to the genetic disorder of interest. Because they are targeted selectively to one sequence, optimally constructed ASOs do not target any additional genes and thus potentially reduce the likelihood of adverse events or side effects. While they have great potential, in practice, the current generation of ASOs is constrained by several factors intrinsic to their composition, including some or all of the following factors:

Peptide Nucleic Acids and Janus Bases

Details on PNAs were first published in 1991 by Peter Nielson, Michael Egholm and Ole Buchardt (Nielsen PE, Egholm M, Berg RH, Buchardt O. (1991) Sequence-selective recognition of DNA by strand displacement with a thymine-substituted polyamide. Science. 254 (5037): 1497–500). While these PNAs were shown to be able to bind nucleic acid strands in a sequence specific manner, this effect was not possible with targets comprised of both purines and pyrimidines. These first PNAs were also not water soluble, could not pass across plasma membranes, and self-aggregated, leading to potential toxic accumulation of the drug and thus possible safety issues. Based on this early data, the PNA backbone was modified at both the alpha positions to add conformational homogeneity enabling binding with mixed purine/pyrimidine natural nuclear base targets and additionally to allow water solubility. In 1996, Neil Branda, Guido Kurtz and Jean-Marie Lehn published “JANUS WEDGES: a new approach towards nucleobase-pair recognition” in the journal Chemical Communications. These bifacial nuclear bases had the potential to open a double helix and bind to both strands at a genomic locus in a “triad” motif utilizing the maximum number of Watson-Crick interactions. An issue with these early bi-facial nucleotides was that they were not uniform in their size and thus could not be used together on a peptide backbone to achieve the potential of binding both faces of an open DNA (or RNA) double helix.

PATrOL™ Technology Platform

Backbone technology: The PATrOL^TM platform represents a next-generation gene silencing technology that we believe has the potential to significantly improve upon standard ASO techniques by combining the specificity of antisense approaches with the intracellular penetration and broad organ distribution capabilities of small molecule therapeutics. We are developing ASO therapies using our modular PATrOL™ platform. Our PATrOL™-enabled therapies act by binding to the mutant pre-RNA or messenger RNA (“mRNA”) primary sequence (or secondary or tertiary conformations) to prevent translation by ribosomes into mutant proteins or otherwise eliminate a pathogenic feature of the mutant transcript. Unlike other ASOs, which have a sugar backbone or a chemically modified sugar backbone, our PATrOL™-enabled therapies are designed with a peptide backbone. Some of the potential advantages of using a peptide backbone include:

Targeting technology: In early preclinical studies, our PATrOL™-enabled therapeutic candidates have shown potential advantages over the existing generation of ASOs. We believe that chief among these advantages are cell permeability and broad tissue distribution which have been demonstrated in early preclinical studies. These advantages would allow our PATrOL™ therapeutic candidates to potentially address a wide range of disorders affecting various organs and tissues with systemic or local administration.

The chemistry that we have licensed from CMU includes proprietary modifications to the peptide backbone to include an active moiety, which has been shown to be able to deliver payloads into cells through a process that appears to be endosome-independent, termed “active translocation.” The preclinical studies that we reference, and which are the genesis of a medicinal chemistry process by the academics at CMU over the course of more than a decade of research, were published in a peer reviewed publication in 1999 by Steven Dowdy’s team (Schwarze SR, Ho A, Vocero-Akbani A and Dowdy SF. (1999)In Vivo Protein Transduction: Delivery of a Biologically Active Protein into the Mouse. 285: 1569-1572). These preclinical data describe how the active moiety can traffic a payload of 120kD not only into most tissues, but also across the blood-brain barrier and into the cell bodies of neurons through all regions of the brain. In 2006, a team at CMU was the first to couple a similar active moiety to the peptide backbone of PNAs and show penetration through cell membranes (Dragulescu-Andrasi A, Rapireddy S, He G, Bhattacharya B, Hyldig-Nielsen JJ, Zon G, Ly DH. (2006) Cell-permeable peptide nucleic acid designed to bind to the 5'-untranslated region of E-cadherin transcript induces potent and sequence-specific antisense effects.J Am Chem Soc.  128(50):16104-12.).

Nucleotide technology: With our proprietary modular technology, we are capable of designing therapies with a peptide backbone onto which are coupled natural nuclear bases. Natural nuclear bases are commercially available. The peptide backbone subunits, each coupled to the proprietary active moiety, are manufactured by us and/or our suppliers. The natural nuclear bases are then coupled to the cell-permeable peptide backbone subunit to form a “monomer.” In addition to being able to create these cell-permeable broadly distributed monomers that contain natural nuclear bases, we have licensed proprietary engineered nuclear bases (including bi-specific “Janus” bases) exclusively from CMU which can also be coupled to cell-permeable peptide backbone subunits. With these cell permeable monomers forming the basis of the platform, they can be linked together to form oligomers of any sequence composition, which can target primary RNA sequences as well as secondary RNA structures. A key attribute of the peptide backbone is that it is pre-organized chemically to form a rigid backbone (see discussion above). We believe that the modular components (i.e. the “monomers”) together with the lack of chirality in the backbone makes the platform highly scalable for manufacturing purposes, thus enabling a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates for mutant gene silencing than traditional methods.

We believe we are the first and only company to successfully create Janus bases, engineered nucleic acids that target double-stranded RNA and potentially DNA by engaging both strands at once. The concept of Janus bases was first conceived nearly two decades ago but had not yet been realized due to the difficulty in chemical process development and the re-engineering required to allow the bifacial bases to have equal size – key considerations in creating tightly binding triple helices (or triads). A team of scientists, including our director of chemistry, has co-invented 16 different Janus bases to interface with every possible combination of 16 canonical and non-canonical nucleobase pairs that could occur in target RNA. Janus bases can be combined in various combinations to bind in a sequence-specific manner to secondary and tertiary RNA structures, whereas traditional antisense therapies generally cannot, and thus many sequences have heretofore not been targetable. This gives us the ability to expand the applicability of antisense therapies beyond their current capabilities as our candidates are not limited to regions of RNA that are free of secondary structure and thus potentially opens up a multitude of additional sequence targets. Our approach can also potentially be utilized for DNA therapeutics, such as gene editing, gene regulation and liquid biopsy diagnostics.

We have licensed proprietary technology from CMU, which comprises the modular elements of the PATrOL™ platform, including gamma-PNAs with a series of backbone modifications, such as with the proprietary active moieties critical for cell permeability in combination with exclusively licensed chemically engineered bifacial nucleotides against not only canonical base pairs (A-T or C-G hydrogen bonding), but also non-canonical binding, which allows targeting of RNA hairpins where the double-stranded RNA cannot bind to itself due to a mismatch, but that mismatch can be bound and stabilized by the non-canonical bifacial nucleotide. The elegance of this approach is the combination of the non-charged peptide backbone that does not cause repulsion when near a DNA or RNA negatively charged double helix with the proprietary bifacial nucleotides of uniform size. This combination is particularly powerful at the RNA level in addressing RNA hairpins with non-canonical bases to stabilize them and potentially eliminate the ability of target transcripts to be translated. The followingFigure 1 illustrates the concept of how our chemically engineered bifacial nuclear bases tethered to a peptide backbone can intercalate into the double helix of double-stranded RNA and assume a stable and sterically appropriate triple helix. The technology was developed over the course of almost a decade, and we believe it is unique to us, allowing us to target RNA secondary structures either by opening them up via our gamma-PNA technology to bind in a primary sequence-specific manner or by intercalating into secondary (or potentially even tertiary) structures, thus allowing sequence-specific selectivity of targets that have been largely not addressable to competing RNA silencing technologies.

diseases.

Figure 1.Intellectual Property Simulations of a bifacial Janus base binding to an RNA duplex containing the corresponding base-pairs illustrating the pre-organized right-handed structure of the gamma-PNA and the steric uniformity of the bifacial nucleotides.

While traditional ASOs can be long (i.e., 16-mers or longer), PATrOL™-enabled therapies can be as small as a 3-mer gamma-PNA due to the Janus bases, allowing them to better reach target tissue and disseminate evenly within cells. As a result of their capability to disperse through many body tissues, PATrOL™-enabled therapies have the potential to address whole-body symptoms of diseases that manifest in multiple organ systems.

Product Pipeline

Huntington’s Disease

HD is a devastating rare neurodegenerative disorder. After onset, symptoms such as uncontrolled movements, cognitive impairments and emotional disturbances worsen over time. HD is caused by toxic aggregation of mutant huntingtin protein, leading to progressive neuron loss in the striatum and cortex of the brain. The wildtype huntingtin gene (HTT) has a region in which a three-base DNA sequence, CAG, is repeated many times. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 26 or fewer times in this region, the resulting protein behaves normally. While the wildtype function ofHTT is largely uncharacterized, the protein is known to be essential for normal brain development. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 40 times or more in this region, the resulting protein becomes toxic and causes HD. Every person has two copies, or alleles, of theHTT. Only one of the alleles (the “mutant” allele) needs to bear at least 40 CAG repeats for HD to occur. HD is one of many known repeat expansion disorders, which are a set of genetic disorders caused by a mutation that leads to a repeat of nucleotides exceeding the normal threshold. Current therapies for patients with HD can only manage individual symptoms. There is no approved therapy that has been shown to delay or halt disease progression. There are approximately 30,000 symptomatic patients in the U.S. and more than 200,000 at-risk of inheriting the disease.

NT0100 Program - PATrOL™Enabled PNA for Huntington’s Disease

The PATrOL™ platform has the potential to address many dominantly inherited genetic diseases. We will be initially focused on HD, a fatal rare genetic repeat expansion disorder with no viable treatment options.

One especially important advantage of the PATrOL™ platform that makes it promising for the treatment of repeat expansion disorders like HD is the ability of our small ASOs to potentially self-assemble within an RNA hairpin. As the number of repeats increases, the PATrOL™ oligonucleotides bind more tightly to each other and the mutant RNA. This allows our therapies to potentially inactivate mutantHTT mRNA before it can be translated into harmful protein via selective binding to the expanded CAG repeats while leaving the normalHTT mRNA largely unbound to drug and producing functional protein. Achieving mutant allele selectivity would be a key advantage for any RNA-based approach aiming to treat HD. The PATrOL™-enabled NT0100 program is currently in preclinical development for the treatment of HD.

NT0200 Program- PATrOL™ Enabled gamma-PNA for Myotonic Dystophy Type 1

Our pipeline also contains a second near-term, potentially transformative medicine, which we believe has significant potential for a different severe and rare trinucleotide repeat disease, DM1. Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a multisystem disorder that primarily affects skeletal and smooth muscle. DM1 is caused by expansion of a CTG trinucleotide repeat in the noncoding region of theDMPK gene, which captures and sequesters splice proteins. Sequestered splice proteins cannot then fulfill their normal functions. The diagnosis of DM1 is suspected in individuals with characteristic muscle weakness and is confirmed by molecular genetic testing ofDMPK. CTG repeat length exceeding 34 repeats is abnormal. Molecular genetic testing detects pathogenic variants in nearly 100% of affected individuals. It is estimated that the global prevalence of DM1 is 1:20,000 individuals. The clinical candidates in development target the DM1 expanded allele with PATrOL™-enabled drug candidates to disrupt and/or open the mutant hairpin and allow release of sequestered splice proteins.

Additional Indications

In addition, we are in the process of building an early stage pipeline of other therapies that focus on the unique advantages of our technology across a variety of rare diseases.

Intellectual Property

We have a stronginitial intellectual property position behind our fundamental PATrOL™ technology that was initially developed at CMU.Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”). Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates in the United States and other countries. We have exclusively licensed patent applications, pursuant to our license agreement with CMU (the(as amended, the “CMU License Agreement”), protecting our platform for development and commercialization of oligonucleotide therapeutics. We will continue to focus our resources on obtaining patents and filing new patent applications that drive value.

We have an exclusive license to patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement that may provide exclusivity for product candidates in our pipeline and may provide exclusivity for our core technology. Our core technology patent applications are directed to chemically-modified nucleosides and peptide nucleic acids to form compounds of biological and clinical interest. We have

exclusively licensed patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement to cover 16 Janus bases and treatment of repeat expansion disorders using this technology.

Peptide Nucleic Acids containing Modified Nucleobases

We have exclusively licensed patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering peptide nucleic acid oligomers containing modified nucleobases, which can be used as a basis for therapeutics. Nucleosides and chemically modified nucleosides are the basic building blocks of our drug development platform. Therefore, claims that cover an oligonucleotide incorporating one of our proprietary modified nucleosides may apply to a wide array of mechanisms of action and therapeutic targets. Our modified nucleobases may comprise a divalent nucleobase in sequence with several other divalent nucleobases to create a PNA.

We have filed patent applications in this category in the United States and pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Methods of Producing Peptide Nucleic Acids with Modified Nucleobases

We have exclusively licensed a patent (with an estimated expiration date of April 11, 2034) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement disclosing a method of manufacturing a peptide nucleic acid oligomer containing a modified nucleobase. We have exclusively licensed a provisional patent application (with an estimated expiration date of March 21, 2040) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement disclosing a method of synthesis of LH and RH gamma PNA monomers with on-resin sidechain functionalization.

Use of Peptide Nucleic Acids to Disrupt RNA Structure

We have exclusively licensed a provisional patent application (with an estimated expiration date of June 7, 2039) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering use of a peptide nucleic acid oligomer for disrupting a target RNA structure, to prevent translation of a target protein.

Use of Peptide Nucleic Acids to Treat Repeat Expansion Disorders

We have exclusively licensed patent applications (with an estimated expiration date of February 22, 2040) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering the use of a peptide nucleic acid oligomer for the treatment of repeat expansion disorders, including, for example, HD and DM1.

Patent Portfolio

As of January 7, 2020, we owned or in-licensed approximately 2 issued patents, which will expire in approximately 2034 without taking into account and possible patent term adjustments or extensions. As of January 7, 2020, we also owned or in-licensed approximately 13 patent applications, which if ultimately issued would expire as late as approximately 2040, based upon the potential expiration date of the last to expire of those patent applications without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. As to the in-licensed patents and patent applications, they include 2 issued patents and 12 patent applications from CMU pursuant to the CMU License Agreement.

We plan to seek patent protection in significant markets and/or countries for each product to be developed. We also seek to maximize patent terms. In some cases, the patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term lost during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”)FDA regulatory review. The patent exclusivity period for a drug may deter generic drugs from entering the market. Patent exclusivity depends on a number of factors including initial patent term and available patent term extensions based upon delays caused by the regulatory approval process.

We also rely on trade secrets, proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain a competitive position in our field.

While we have obtained patents and have patent applications pending, the extent of effective patent protection in the United States and other countries is highly uncertain. No consistent policy addresses the breadth of claims allowed in or the degree of protection afforded under patents of medical and pharmaceutical companies. Patents we currently own or may obtain might not be sufficiently broad to protect us against competitors with similar technology. Any of our patents could be invalidated or circumvented.

The holders of competing patents could determine to commence a lawsuit against us and may even prevail in any such lawsuit. Litigation could result in substantial cost to and diversion of effort by us, which may harm our business. In addition, our efforts to protect or defend our proprietary rights may not be successful or, even if successful, may result in substantial cost to us.

License Agreement with Carnegie Mellon University

On December 17, 2018, we entered into the CMU License Agreement. Under the CMU License Agreement, CMU granted us an exclusive, worldwide right to the PATrOL™ technology, with 14 patents and patent applications describing composition of matter and uses of the platform.technology. Our exclusive, worldwide right to the PATrOL™ technology is subject to CMU’s right (which is exercisable only upon our written consent) to grant a non-exclusive license to a third party as a means of resolving disputes or to settle claims arising out of allegations that the licensed technology under the CMU License Agreement

infringes upon the intellectual property rights of such third party.

On January 1, 2022, we entered into an amendment to the CMU License Agreement (the “CMU License Agreement Amendment”) to amend certain terms and add additional patents and patent applications.

As partial consideration for the license right, we issued and delivered to CMU 835,625 shares of our common stock, which constituted 8.2% of the then fully diluted shares of our common stock. Further, as partial consideration for the license right, we issued a warrant to CMU, exercisable only upon the earlier of (i) the day that we received cumulative capital funding or revenues equal to $2 million or (ii) 30 days prior to any change of control event that provides for the issuance of shares, for a number of shares of our common stock sufficient such that when added to the 835,625 shares of our common stock, CMU’s holds in the aggregate an amount equal to 8.2% of the fully-diluted shares of our common stock;provided,however, that for purposes of calculating 8.2%, only the first $2 million of capital funding shall be considered in the determination of fully-diluted shares of our common stock.and CMU exercised thesuch warrant issued under the CMU License Agreement prior to the effective time of the Merger (as defined below) for an aggregate of 103,787 shares of our common stock. Under the CMU License Agreement, CMU has preemptive rights with respect to certain future sales of securities by us for capital-raising purposes, “piggyback” registration rights and co-sale rights with respect to certain resales of shares by our stockholders.

Pursuant to the CMU License Agreement, we paid CMU a one-time payment of approximately $54,000 for patenting and other intellectual property protection costs incurred by CMU prior to the effective date of the CMU License Agreement and relating to the licensed technology thereunder. In connection with entering into the CMU License Agreement Amendment, we paid CMU a one-time amendment fee of $10,000. Further, we must achieve certain milestones to demonstrate certain developments of the licensed product. We may obtain one 6-month extension to meet each milestone by making a nominal payment to CMU. Further, subject to certain conditions, we will pay to CMU royalties at a low single-digit percentage of aggregate annual net sales of licensed products and a percentage at the medium and higher rangeranges of the bottom third of sublicensing fees.

The term of the CMU License Agreement concludes at the end of 20 years from its effective date or on the expiration date of the last-to-expire patent licensed, whichever comes later, unless otherwise terminated. The CMU License Agreement may be terminated (or the exclusivity of the license may be terminated) before the term due to customary payment default and fundamental change default provisions and failure of performance obligations. In addition, CMU may terminate the CMU License Agreement if we or our affiliates challenge the validity of the intellectual property licensed thereunder in a judicial or administrative proceeding. In the event we or our affiliates successfully challenge the validity of the intellectual property licensed thereunder, the royalties payable to CMU increase by a single digit percentage. We may terminate the CMU License Agreement upon payment of termination fees, the amounts of which depend on the date of such termination, but only if at the time of such termination, a licensed patent contains a valid claim. If not earlier terminated, at the expiration of the term, the rights and licenses granted to us by CMU survive in perpetuity, subject to our compliance with indemnification and dispute resolution obligations.

Manufacturing

We currently manufacture our starting materials both in-house and by using third-party suppliers and our research-scale final products both in-house and externally. We intend to rely on third parties for larger scale manufacturing going forward. We do not have any current contractual arrangementscurrently contract for the manufacture of commercial supplies of anydevelopmental quantities of our product candidates that we may develop. We currently employ internal resources and third-party consultants to manage our manufacturing contractors.

Sales and Marketing

We have not yet defined our sales, marketing or product distribution strategy for any of our future product candidates. Our commercial strategy may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sale force, or the establishment of our own commercial and specialty sales force, as well as similar strategies for regions and territories outside the United States. We plan to further evaluate these alternatives when it approaches approval for the use of our product candidates for one or more indications.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is highly competitive and involves a high degree of risk. Potential competitors in the United States and worldwide are numerous and include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, educational institutions and research foundations. We compete with many of these companiesentities who, either alone or with their strategic partners, have far greater experience, capital resources, research and technical resources, marketing experience, clinical trial experience, and research and development staffs and facilities than we do. Some of our competitors may develop and commercialize products that compete directly with our product candidates, and they may introduce products to market earlier than our products or on a more cost-effective basis. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and, also, in the future, to recruitin recruiting clinical trial sites and subjects for our clinical trials.

We expect any products that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more effective, more convenient or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their competing products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for any of our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

The field of gene editing is broad and characterized by a diversity of approaches. These include but are not limited to: CRISPR/Cas9 nuclease technology, alternative nuclease-based genome editing technologies such as ZFNs, engineered meganucleases and TALENs, base editing, prime editing, epigenetic editing, gene therapy, oligonucleotides, cell therapy and DNA-cutting enzymes. Based on publicly available information, we are aware of numerous companies pursing such approaches, including Arbor Biotechnologies, Inc., Beam Therapeutics Inc., bluebird bio, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Chroma Medicine, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Graphite Bio., Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Mammoth Biosciences, Inc., Metagenomi, Inc., Precision Biosciences, Inc., Prime Medicine, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., Scribe Therapeutics, Inc., Tune Therapeutics, Inc., and Verve Therapeutics, Inc.

There are no disease-modifying treatments available for DM1. Based on publicly available information, we are aware of several companies actively pursuing preclinical and clinical development on various approaches to treat DM1 including AMO Pharma Limited, Avidity Biosciences, Inc., Dyne Therapeutics, Inc., Design Therapeutics, Inc., PepGen Inc., Entrada Therapeutics, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, and Expansion Therapeutics, Inc.

There are currently no approved treatments available to slow the progression of HD. Based on publicly available information, Roche and Ionis have an investigational drug in Phase III clinical development, and several companies have ongoing clinical and preclinical programs targeting the underlying disease in HD, including Wave Life Sciences, LTD.Ltd., Annexon, Inc., Sangamo Biosciences,Therapeutics, Inc., ProQR Nuredis,Therapeutics N.V., uniQure N.V., Spark Therapeutics, (which was recently acquired by Roche)PTC Therapeutics, Inc., and Voyager Therapeutics. ATherapeutics, Inc. We are aware that a number of other companies are developing drugs focused on treating the symptoms associated with HD, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Phase II)Ltd., Vaccinex (Phase II), Prana Biotechnology (Phase II), Omeros Corporation (Phase II), Stealth BioTherapeutics (Phase II) and Azevan Pharmaceuticals, (Phase II), among others.

There are no disease-modifying treatments available for DM1. Based on review of the clinictrials.gov and clinicialtrialsregister.eu websites, AMO Pharmaceuticals reported results of a 16-patient non-randomized, clinical trial in congenital DM1 with tidegluseb, a thiazoledione that inhibits glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta, and is also currently initiating a 56 patient Phase II/III randomized, controlled study. Ionis conducted a Phase I/II trial of IONIS-DMPKRx in a randomized, controlled 48 patients with DM1 that did not demonstrate efficacy, and has since abandoned the indication. The Centre d’Etude des Cellules Souches (CECS), a non-commercial sponsor, is conducting a 40-patient clinical trial of metformin in DM1 in France. In addition to AMO Pharmaceuticals, Dyne, Vertex, Triplet Therapeutics, Expansion Therapeutics, and Nuredis are investigating agents to treat DM1.

Reverse Stock Split

On January 18, 2019, following a special meeting of our stockholders, our board of directors approved a one-for-twenty reverse stock split of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock (the “Reverse Stock Split”). On January 23, 2019, we filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware a Certificate of Amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation to effect the Reverse Stock Split. Our common stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis when the market opened on February 4, 2019. As a result of the Reverse Stock Split, the outstanding common stock decreased from 56,466,428 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, to 2,829,248 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share.

Unless otherwise noted, impacted amounts and share information included in the financial statements and notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K have been retroactively adjusted for the Reverse Stock Split as if such Reverse Stock Split occurred on the first day of the first period presented. Certain amounts in the financial statements, the notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, may be slightly different than previously reported due to rounding of fractional shares as a result of the Reverse Stock Split. 

Merger

On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), completed a merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019 (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, (i) a subsidiary of Ohr merged with and into Legacy NeuBase with Legacy NeuBase (renamed as “NeuBase Corporation”) continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was renamed as “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” (the “Merger”). At the closing of the Merger, each outstanding share of Legacy NeuBase’s capital stock was converted into the right to receive 1.019055643 shares of the Company’s common stock. Shares of the Company’s common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “NBSE” as of market open on July 15, 2019. The Company’s previous ticker symbol was “OHRP”.

Unless otherwise noted, impacted amounts and share information included in the financial statements and notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K have been retroactively adjusted for the Merger as if such Merger occurred on the first day of the first period presented. Certain amounts in the financial statements, the notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, may be slightly different than previously reported due to rounding of fractional shares as a result of the Merger.

Pre-Merger Financing

On July 11, 2019, prior to the completion of the Merger, Legacy NeuBase completed transactions contemplated by certain financing agreements (the “Pre-Merger Financing”) resulting in gross proceeds to Legacy NeuBase of approximately $9.0 million, consisting of (i) a private placement with certain accredited investors, whereby, among other things, Legacy NeuBase issued to such investors shares of Legacy NeuBase common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $8.40 million (the “Legacy NeuBase Equity Financing”) and (ii) the conversion of outstanding convertible notes of Legacy NeuBase with an aggregate principal amount of $600,000 (the “Legacy NeuBase Debt Financing”), which were automatically converted into Legacy NeuBase common stock immediately preceding the closing of the Legacy NeuBase Equity Financing at a conversion price equal to 90% of the purchase price per share of the Legacy NeuBase common stock issued in the Legacy NeuBase Equity Financing.

Post-Merger Financing

On July 12, 2019, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with certain accredited investors, pursuant to which, among other things, we agreed to sell to the investors an aggregate of 1,538,462 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $3.25 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $5.0 million (the “Post-Merger Financing”). On July 16, 2019, we completed the Post-Merger Financing and issued an aggregate of 1,538,462 shares of our common stock.

Legacy Pre-Merger Programs

As a result of the Merger, our going-forward operations will be primarily those of Legacy NeuBase. Pursuant to the Merger, we retained certain assets and technologies that were Ohr’s assets and technologies before the consummation of the Merger. Despite our expectation that our primary operations will be those of Legacy NeuBase on a going-forward basis, we may choose to monetize legacy Ohr assets in the future. Previously, Ohr acquired the SKS Ocular 1 LLC sustained release technology, which was designed to develop best in class drug formulations for ocular disease (the “SKS Assets”) and exclusive rights to an animal model for dry macular degeneration and rights to produce and use carboxyethylpyrrole (“CEP”) for research, clinical and commercial applications (the “CEP Assets”). In September 2019, we terminated the licenses for the SKS Assets and the CEP Assets, as the Board determined there would be substantial costs associated with continuing to maintain such assets and attempts to monetize such assets would be a distraction to our management and other employees and an inefficient use of their time. We continue to retainhave an equity interest in DepYmed, Inc. (“DepYmed”), a joint venture that Ohr entered into with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2014. DepYmed is a preclinical stage company focused on Wilson’s disease, Rett syndrome, and oncology applications. We also retain intellectual property, which has been licensed to DepYmed, and have no other ongoing obligations (monetary or otherwise) to DepYmed. In February 2021, the Company sold certain intellectual property to DepYmed in exchange for shares of Series A-4 preferred stock of DepYmed.

Governmental Regulation

Government authorities in the United States (including federal, state and local authorities) and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the manufacturing, research and clinical development, marketing, labeling and packaging, storage, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising and promotion, pricing and export and import of pharmaceutical products, such as our product candidates. 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. Moreover, failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in, among other things, warning letters, clinical holds, civil or criminal

penalties, recall or seizure of products, injunction, disbarment, partial or total suspension of production or withdrawal of the product from the market. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Food and Drug Administration Regulation and Marketing Approval

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), and related regulations. Under the FDCA, a drug is defined as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations.regulations, and when sold or used outside the United States are subject to regulation by other governmental authorities equivalent to the FDA. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. regulatory requirements at any time during the drug development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions and non-approval of product candidates. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) of a clinical hold on clinical trials, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or related supplements, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record-keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, sales, advertising, promotion, marketing, sampling and import and export of our products. Our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA through the New Drug Application (“NDA”) process before they may be legally marketed in the United States.

States, and would need approval from equivalent governmental authorities to be marketed in other countries.

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

IND and Clinical Trials

Prior to commencing the first clinical trial, an IND, which contains the results of preclinical studies along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be

conducted during drug development. Further, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the investigational plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that site. Informed written consent must also be obtained from each trial subject. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

For purposes of NDA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in sequential phases that may overlap:

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, GCP requirements and their protocols in order for the data to be considered reliable for regulatory purposes.

An investigational drug product that is a combination of two different drugs in the samea single dosage form must comply with an additional rule that requires that each component make a contribution to the claimed effects of the drug product. This typically requires larger studies that test the drug against each of its components. In addition, typically, if a drug product is intended to treat a chronic disease, as is the case with some of our product candidates, safety and efficacy data must be gathered over an extended period of time, which can range from six months to three years or more. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of product candidates or new drugs for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures upon our activities.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial, is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. DisclosureUnder certain conditions, a sponsor may delay disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

The NDA Approval Process

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the proposed indication. Each NDA submission requires a substantial user fee payment (exceeding $2.5$3.1 million in fiscal year 2019)2022) unless a waiver or exemption

applies. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent non-clinicalnonclinical studies, or preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators that meet GCP requirements.

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

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical safety studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for the NDA sponsor’s manufacturing the product in compliance with Currentcurrent Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drugs. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf-life.

The results of drug development, non-clinicalnonclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to conduct an initial review to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the FDA’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. If the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA has agreed to specific performance goals on the review of NDAs and seeks to review standard NDAs within 12 months from submission of the NDA. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. After the FDA completes its initial review of an NDA, it will communicate to the sponsor that the drug will either be approved, or it will issue a complete response letter to communicate that the NDA will not be approved in its current form and inform the sponsor of changes that must be made or additional clinical, non-clinicalnonclinical or manufacturing data that must be received before the application can be approved, with no implicationapproved. The FDA does not comment in a complete response letter regarding the ultimate approvability of the application or the timing of any such approval, if ever. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or effectiveness 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, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically 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. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP regulations. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. This may significantly delay further review of the application. If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCPGLP regulations, the FDA may determine the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from the primary efficacycertain analyses provided in the NDA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, Phase IV clinical trials, which are additional clinical trials performed after a product is approved. Phase IV clinical trials may be made a condition to be satisfied for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase IV clinical trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA now has express statutory authority to require sponsors to conduct post-marketing trials to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency.

The FDA also has authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), from manufacturers to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. A sponsor may also voluntarily propose a REMS as part of the NDA submission. The need for a REMS is determined as part of the review of the NDA. Based on statutory standards, elements of a REMS may include “dear doctor letters,” a medication guide, more elaborate targeted educational programs, and in some cases elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”), which is the most restrictive REMS. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. These elements are negotiated as part of the NDA approval, and in some cases if consensus is not obtained until after the “review date” set forth under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, as amended, the approval date may be delayed. FDA may also require a REMS after the NDA approval based on “new safety information.” Once adopted, REMS are subject to periodic assessment and modification.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

The FDA, under its Fraud, Untrue Statements of Material Facts, Bribery and Illegal Gratuities Policy, can significantly delay the approval of a marketing application, or seek to withdraw an approved application where it identifies fraud or discrepancies in regulatory applications or submissions. Such actions by the FDA may significantly delay or suspend substantive scientific review of a pending application during a validity assessment or remove approved products from the market until the assessment is complete and questions regarding reliability of the data are resolved.

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of onerous risk management plans, restrictions on distribution or post-marketing trial requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for our products, or obtaining approval but for significantly limited use, would harm our business. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States.

Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. In addition, the first NDA or Biologics License Application (“BLA”) applicant to receive orphan drug designation for a particular drug is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years in the United States, except in limited circumstances. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Our initial two programs in DM1 and HD are targeting orphan indications.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide a process for listing patents pertaining to approved products in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book) and for a competitor seeking approval of an application that references a product with listed patents to make certifications pertaining to such patents. In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a statutory protection, known as non-patent exclusivity, against the FDA’s acceptance or approval of certain competitor applications.

Patent Term Restoration

Patent term restoration can compensate for time lost during drug development and the regulatory review process by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, provided the sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, 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 and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

​

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed by the NDA holder listed in the drug’s application or otherwise are then published in the FDA’s Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical studies or clinical trials to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (1) the required patent information has not been filed; (2) the listed patent has expired; (3) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a Section VIII statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

An applicant submitting an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (a “Section 505(b)(2) NDA”), which permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, is required to certify to the FDA regarding any patents listed in the Orange Book for the approved product it references to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Market Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, a Section 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the non-clinicalnonclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Post-Marketing Requirements.

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of

adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet, including social media. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval, or may include in a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state and foreign regulations. In the United States, the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, as amended, a part of the FDCA.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific, approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. NeuBase relies,We rely, and expectsexpect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such product or may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, also known as Phase IV testing, REMS to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the 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, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, withdrawal of approval, 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 in development.

Reimbursement Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws and Other Regulatory Matters

In the United States, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products and medical devices are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) (e.g.e.g., the Office of Inspector General), or “OIG”, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorneys General and other state and local government agencies.agencies). For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (or “AKS”), the federal False Claims Act (or “FCA”), the privacy regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet

applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program (“Part D”) to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance), Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for product candidates for which NeuBase receiveswe receive regulatory approval. However, any negotiated prices for our product candidates covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-government payors.

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 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. A plan for the research will be developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our product candidates, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a clinical trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates, if approved. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product candidates on a profitable basis.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be priced significantly lower than in the United States.

Fraud and Abuse

As noted above, in the United States, we are subject to complex laws and regulations pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse,” including, but not limited to, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and other state and federal laws and regulations. Violating these fraud and abuse laws could result in significant criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws, the absence of substantive, practical guidance in the form

of regulations or court decisions and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that our future sales and marketing practices or our future relationships with medical and healthcare professionals might be challenged under anti-kickback laws, which could significantly harm us. Because we intend to commercialize product candidates that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we plan to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. The False Claims Act also allows a private individual (acting as a “whistleblower”) to bring on action on behalf of the federal government and share in any monetary recoveries. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our product candidates, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been found liable under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for a federal False Claims Act violationviolations are particularly concerning because they include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $11,181currently $11,803 and $22,363$23,607 for each separate false claim, and the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs and,and. Additionally, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a federal False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims Act.

Act fines and/or penalties.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as

The Civil Monetary Penalties Law allows for the imposition of civil monetary penalties against any person who offers or transfers anything of value to a federal health care program beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier for the order or receipt of any item or service reimbursable by a federal health care program. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are typically not considered “providers, practitioners, or suppliers.” However, offering anything of value to a beneficiary that is likely to influence the beneficiary to select a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier (e.g., a physician or pharmacy) would implicate the beneficiary inducement provisions of the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (Beneficiary Inducements CMP).

The federal criminal statute on false statements (related to health care matters) makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up any material fact, make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services.

As discussed below, a similar the federal requirement Physician Payments Sunshine Act (at times referred to as the Open Payments™ Program) requires manufacturers to track and report to the federal government (for disclosure to the public via a databases) certain payments (i.e., transfers of value) made to physicians and teaching hospitals in the previous calendar year. These laws, The Open Payments Program and its requirements may affect our sales, marketing and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state, and soon federal, authorities.authorities public and government scrutiny and penalties.

The majority of states also have statutes akin to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, False Claims Act, and the Physician Payments Sunshine Act that may apply (now or when we have a commercialized product), which, given certain ambiguities around application and execution, may impact the way we operate and increases the potential for non-compliance and risks (e.g., penalties).

Because we intend to commercialize product candidates that could be reimbursed under a federal, state healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we plan to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject to. Notably, while we seek to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that our forthcoming program and controls will always protect us from acts committed by employees or third-party vendors.

Federal and state agencies continue to expend significant attention, energy and resources to combat healthcare fraud and abuse within our industry. The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects companies to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a company to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (1) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (2) additions or modifications to product labeling; (3) the recall or discontinuation of our products; (4) internal investigations into business practices; (5) the development, enhancement, and implementation of compliance policies and controls, or (4)(6) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “PPACA”), was enacted, which includes measures that have or will significantly change the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the PPACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

Many of theFull details regarding the implementation of the PPACA are yet to be determined, and, at this time, the full effect of the PPACA on our business remains unclear. Further, there have been recent public announcements by members of the U.S. Congress, President Trump and his administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the PPACA. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which, among other things, eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. We cannot predict the ultimate form or timing of any repeal or replacement of the PPACA or the effect such a repeal or replacement would have on our business.

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (the “BPCA”), certain drugs may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA (a “Written Request”) relating to the use of the active moiety of the drug in children. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. The FDA may not issue a Written Request for studies on unapproved or approved indications or where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may not produce health benefits in that population. ApplicationsA sponsor is not required to perform pediatric studies in response to a Written Request. To facilitate and expedite development for pediatric uses, applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

We have not received a Written Request for such pediatric studies, although we may ask the FDA to issue a Written Request for such studies in the future. To receive the six-month pediatric market exclusivity, we would need to receive a Written Request from the FDA, conduct the requested studies in accordance with a written agreement with the FDA or, if there is no written agreement, in accordance with commonly accepted scientific principles, and submit reports of the studies. A Written Request may include studies for indications that are not currently in the labeling if the FDA determines that such information will benefit the public health. The FDA will accept the reports upon its determination that the studies were conducted in accordance with, and are responsive to, the original Written Request or commonly accepted scientific principles, as appropriate, and that the reports comply with the FDA’s filing requirements.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (the “PREA”), an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug 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 PREA also authorizes the FDA to require holders of approved NDAs for marketed drugs to conduct pediatric studies under certain circumstances. With the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (the “FDASIA”), in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

EmployeesHuman Capital Resources

In order to achieve the goals and expectations of our Company, it is crucial that we continue to attract and retain top talent. To facilitate talent attraction and retention, we strive to make NeuBase a safe and rewarding workplace, with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop in their careers, supported by strong compensation, benefits and health and wellness programs, and by programs that build connections between our employees.

As of January7, 2020,September 30, 2022, we had nine37 full-time employees in the United States. As disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 14, 2022, in connection with a reprioritization of our clinical and research initiatives, we reduced our workforce by approximately 60% in October 2022. None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that we have a good relationship with our employees.

The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our employees. Accordingly, we are committed to their health, safety and wellness. We provide our employees and their families with access to a variety of innovative, flexible and convenient health and wellness programs, including benefits that provide protection and security so they can have peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that impact their financial well-being; that support their physical and mental health by providing tools and resources to help them improve or maintain their health status and encourage engagement in healthy behaviors; and that offer choice where possible so they can customize their benefits to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations.

We provide robust compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees. In addition to salaries, these programs include potential annual discretionary bonuses, stock awards, a 401(k) Plan, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings and flexible spending accounts, paid time off, family leave, and flexible work schedules, among others. In addition to our broad-based equity award programs, we have used targeted equity-based grants with vesting conditions to facilitate retention of personnel, particularly those with critical drug development skills and experience.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on August 4, 2009, as successor to BBM Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Prime Resource, Inc., which was organized March 29, 2002 as a Utah corporation) pursuant to a reincorporation merger. On August 4, 2009, we reincorporated in Delaware as “Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc.” On July 12, 2019, we completed the Merger with NeuBase Corporation (formerly known as NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, and, upon completion of the Merger, we changed our name to “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” Shares of our common stock commenced trading on theThe Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “NBSE” as of market open on July 15, 2019.

Address

Our principal executive offices are located at 700350 Technology Drive, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, and our telephone number is (646) 450-1790.(412) 763-3350. Our website is located at www.neubasetherapeutics.com. Any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, nor is it in any way part of, this Form 10-K.

Recent Developments

Approval of Reverse Stock Split

On September 8, 2022, the Company held its 2022 annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to which the stockholders of the Company voted in favor of a series of alternate amendments to the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation to effect, at the discretion of the Company’s board of directors at any time prior to the Company’s 2023 annual meeting of stockholders, a reverse split of the Company’s common stock, whereby each outstanding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 shares would be combined, converted or changed into one share of the Company’s common stock.

Strategic Restructuring Focused on Advancing Platform in Gene Editing

On October 14, 2022, the Company announced a strategic restructuring to expand its focus to include the advancement of its platform into gene editing. As part of the cost-cutting strategy and development pipeline shift to gene editing, the Company will defer preclinical activities for its DM1, HD, and KRAS programs, hold plans to submit an IND application for DM1 to the FDA, and pursue collaborative initiatives, including partnerships, for these programs. The Company estimates that it will incur total expenses relating to the restructuring of approximately $0.5 million, consisting of severance and termination-related costs, and expects to record a significant portion of these charges in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2022.This restructuring plan is expected to extend the Company’s cash runway into the second quarter of calendar year 2024 based on current operating plans and estimates.

On October 21, 2022, in line with our strategic restructuring to expand our focus to include the advancement of our platform into gene editing, we announced that we entered into a research agreement with a global healthcare company, pursuant to which such global healthcare company will evaluate our PATrOL™ platform for three monogenic genetic diseases and we will collaborate on the evaluation of drug candidates for three undisclosed indications.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and we have an Internet website address at www.neubasetherapeutics.com. We make available free of charge on our Internet website address our annual reportreports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as our proxy statements as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You may also obtain copies of such documents from the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

ITEM 1A.RISK1A. RISK FACTORS

Summary of Risk Factors

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC before making an investment decision regarding our common stock.

​

​

Risk Factors

We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).SEC. Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks RelatingRelated to the Company

We are a preclinical-stage company, have a very limited operating history, are not currently profitable, do not expect to become profitable in the near future and may never become profitable.

We are a preclinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the discovery and development of a class of deoxy-ribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid-targetedacid-targeting drugs called peptide nucleic acids or anti-genes, which willdid not change as a result of the merger between Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), and NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019 (the “Merger Agreement”).2019. Since our incorporation, we have focused primarily on the development of our proprietary gamma Peptide-nucleicPeptide-nucleic acid AnTisense OLigonucleotide (“PATrOL™”)AnTisense OLigo platform and preclinical-stage therapeutic candidates. Our platform technology and all of our therapeutic candidates are in the preclinical development stage, and we have not initiated clinical trials for any of our product candidates, nor have any products been approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue. To date, we have not completed a clinical trial (including a pivotal clinical trial), obtained marketing approval for any product candidates, manufactured a commercial scale product or arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Drug development is also a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk.

As a result, we have no meaningful historical operations upon which to evaluate our business and prospects and have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the pharmaceutical industry. We also have not generated any revenues from collaboration and licensing agreements or product sales to date and continue to incur research and development and other expenses. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficitequity and working capital, and our future success is subject to significant uncertainty.

For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur losses, which we expect will increase significantly from recent historical levels as we advance our gene editing platform, expand our drug development activities, seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and begin to commercialize them if they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) or comparable foreign authorities. Even if we succeed in developing and commercializing one or more product candidates, we may never become profitable.

Our strategic restructuring focused on the prioritization of our gene editing platform, leadership transitions, and adjustments to our operating plans, including operating expense reductions, may not be successful, may not result in product revenues or anticipated savings, could result in total costs and expenses that are greater than expected, could result in our forgoing business opportunities and could disrupt our business.

In October 2022, we announced a strategic restructuring to expand our focus to include the advancement of the differentiated gene editing capabilities of our platform. As part of the development pipeline shift to gene editing, we will defer preclinical activities for our DM1, HD, and KRAS programs, hold plans to submit an IND application for DM1 to the FDA, and pursue collaborative initiatives, including partnerships, for these programs. We estimate that we will incur total expenses relating to the restructuring of approximately $0.5 million, consisting of severance and termination-related costs and expect to record a significant portion of these charges in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2022. This restructuring plan is expected to extend our cash runway into the second quarter of calendar year 2024 based on current operating plans and estimates. As part of our cost reduction plan, we implemented a cross-functional reduction of approximately 60% of our then-current workforce. In October 2022, we also announced certain changes to our leadership team, including the resignations of our Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer and President

and Chief Operating Officer, as well as the appointment of Dr. Dov A. Goldstein, a member of our board of directors since 2019, as Chairperson of the Board.

We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements from these changes or from any future changes we may decide to make. For instance, our aforementioned restructuring and the changes to our business strategy and organization may not result in advancement of our gene editing platform or product revenues. The reduction in the size of our organization may also limit the success of our strategy.

Our organizational changes, operating plan adjustments and operating expense reductions also may not be successful. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from these changes, our operating results and financial condition would be adversely affected. We also cannot ensure that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or other cost-cutting measures in the future. Further, these changes as well as the leadership transitions, strategic reprioritization, and any future additional workforce reductions or other cost-cutting measures may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions, leadership changes and strategic reprioritization could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions and negative impact on employee morale or could make it more difficult to fulfill our day-to-day operations. Our workforce reductions, leadership changes and strategic reprioritization could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel who are critical to our business. In 2022, our annualized turnover rate was higher than in prior years and these changes could further or exacerbate that trend. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully advancing our gene editing platform.

The approach we are taking to discover and develop nucleic acid therapeutics is novel and may never lead to marketable products.

We have concentrated our efforts and research and development activities on nucleic acid therapeutics and our synthetic chemistry drug discovery and development platform comprised of peptide nucleic acids with natural and engineered nucleotides.nucleotides and targeting technology. Our future success depends on the successful development and manufacturing of such therapeutics and the effectiveness of our platform. The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop new drugs, including our discoveries about the relationships between oligonucleotide stereochemistry and pharmacology, are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing drugs based on these discoveries or peptide nucleic acids (“PNAs”)PNAs in general is limited. Skepticism as to the feasibility of developing nucleic acid therapeutics and PNAs generally has been, and may continue to be, expressed in scientific literature. In addition, decisions by, and negative results of, other companies with respect to their oligonucleotide development efforts may increase skepticism in the marketplace regarding the potential for oligonucleotides and PNAs.

Relatively few nucleic acid therapeutic product candidates have been tested in humans, and a number of clinical trials for such therapeutics conducted by other companies have not been successful. Few nucleic acid therapeutics have received regulatory approval. The pharmacological properties ascribed to the investigational compounds we are testing in laboratory studies may not be positively demonstrated in clinical trials in patients, and they may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. If our nucleic acid product candidates prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and pipeline would have little, if any, value, which would substantially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, our approach, which focuses on using nucleic acid therapeutics for drug development, as opposed to multiple or other, more advanced proven technologies, may expose us to additional development and financial risks and make it more difficult to raise additional capital if we are not successful in developing a nucleic acid therapeutic that is timely and cost effective to manufacture and achieves proof of concept in animal models, desired tissue distribution, selectivity for the target, and/or regulatory approval. Because our programs are all in the research or preclinical stage, we have not yet been able to assess safety in humans, and there may be long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop using our platform that we cannot predict at this time. Any product candidates the Company may develop will act at the level of deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) or ribonucleic acid (“RNA”), and because animal DNA and RNA often differs from human DNA or RNA at the sequence level, in its regulation and degradation, secondary and tertiary structural conformations and ultimately in being translated into proteins with varying amino acid sequences conformations and functions, testing of our product candidates in animal models may not be predictive of the results we observe in human clinical trials of our product candidates for either safety or efficacy. Also, animal models may not exist for some of the diseases we choose to pursue in our programs. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our gene silencing technology, or any similar or competitive gene silencing technologies, will result in the identification, development and regulatory approval of any products.

There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our gene silencing technology or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. Should we encounter development problems, including unfavorable preclinical or clinical trial results, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may refuse to approve our product candidates, or may require additional information, tests or trials, which could significantly delay product development and significantly increase our development costs. Moreover, even if we are able to provide the requested information or trials to the FDA, there would be no guarantee that the FDA would accept them or approve our product candidates. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or developing or qualifying and validating product release assays, other testing and manufacturing methods, and our equipment and facilities in a timely manner, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate or from commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

We are highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidates targeting rare genetic diseases and our platform technology in general, and we cannot be certain that any of them will receive regulatory approval or be commercialized.

We have spent time, money and effort on the licensing and development of our core asset: our PATrOL™ platform. To date, we have not submitted an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) to the FDA, and no clinical trials have commenced for any of our product candidates. All of our product candidates will require additional development, including further preclinical studies and bioanalytic method development as well as clinical trials to evaluate their toxicology, carcinogenicity and pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and optimize their formulation, and receive regulatory clearances before they can be commercialized. Positive results obtained during early development do not necessarily mean later development will succeed or that regulatory clearances will be obtained. Our drug development efforts may not lead to commercial drugs, either because our product candidates or our PATrOL™ platform are not deemed safe and effective, because of competitive or market forces, intellectual property issues or because we have inadequate financial or other resources to advance our product candidates through the clinical development and approval processes. If any of our product candidates, or our PATrOL™ platform, fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy at any time or during any phase of development, we would experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to abandon, development of the product candidate.

We do not anticipate that any of our current product candidates will be eligible to receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities and begin commercialization for a number of years, if ever. Even if we ultimately receive regulatory approval for any of these product candidates, we or our potential future partners, if any, may be unable to commercialize them successfully for a variety of reasons. These include, for example, the availability of alternative treatments, lack of cost-effectiveness, the cost of manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and competition with other drugs. The success of our product candidates and our PATrOL™ platform may also be limited by the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects. If we fail to commercialize one or more of our current product candidates, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to attain or maintain profitability, and our financial condition may decline.

If development of our candidates does not produce favorable results, we and our collaborators, if any, may be unable to commercialize these products.

To receive regulatory approval for the commercialization of our use of the PATrOL™ platform, or any product candidates that we may develop, adequate and well-controlled clinical trials must be conducted to demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities. In order to support marketing approval, these agencies typically require successful results in one or more Phase III clinical trials, which our current product candidates have not yet reached and may never reach. The development process is expensive, can take many years and has an uncertain outcome. Failure can occur at any stage of the process. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the development process that could delay or prevent commercialization of our current or future product candidates, including the following:

Additionally, because our technology potentially involves genemutation silencing via genome binding and/or editing across multiple cell and tissue types, we are subject to many of the challenges and risks that advanced therapies, such as gene therapies, face, including:

Success in early development does not mean that later development will be successful because, for example, product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical trials.

Furthermore, we have licensedWe may license or acquired virtually all of theacquire intellectual property related to our product candidates from Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”). Muchuniversities. Some of our preclinical studies and other analyses performed to date with respect to our product candidates have been conductedmay be performed by their original owners or collaborators. Therefore, asAs a company, we have limited experience in conducting research on our platform technology and preclinical trials for our product candidates. Since our experience with our platform technology and product candidates is limited, we will need to train our existing personnel or hire additional personnel in order to successfully administer and manage our preclinical studies and clinical trials as anticipated, which may result in delays in completing such anticipated preclinical trials and clinical studies.

We currently do not have strategic collaborations in place for clinical development of our platform technology and any of our current product candidates. Therefore, in the future, we or any potential future collaborative partner will be responsible for establishing the targeted endpoints and goals for development of our product candidates. These targeted endpoints and goals may be inadequate to demonstrate the safety and efficacy levels required for regulatory approvals. Even if we believe data collected during the development of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support marketing approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities.

Further, data generated during development can be interpreted in different ways, and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may interpret such data in different ways than we or our collaborators. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our platform technology and any of our product candidates would prevent our receipt of regulatory approval, and such failure would ultimately prevent the potential commercialization of these product candidates.

Since we do not currently possess the resources necessary to independently develop and commercialize our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may develop, we may seek to enter into collaborative agreements to assist in the development and potential future commercialization of some or all of these assets as a component of our strategic plan. Our discussions with potential collaborators, however, may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all, or it may take longer than expected to establish new collaborations, leading to development and potential commercialization delays, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect to continue to incur significant research and development expenses, which may make it difficult for us to attain profitability.

We expect to expend substantial funds in research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials for our platform technology and product candidates, and to manufacture and market any product candidates in the event they are approved for commercial sale. We have spent significant time, money and effort on the development of our PATrOL™ platform. To date, we have not submitted an IND to the FDA, and no clinical trials have commenced for any of our product candidates. We expect to expend additional substantial funds into advancing our PATrOL™ platform before advancing several preclinical activities in connection with product candidates.

We will likely need additional funding to develop or acquire complementary companies, technologies and assets, as well as for working capital requirements and other operating and general corporate purposes. Moreover, an increase in our headcount would dramatically increase our costs in the near and long-term.

Such spending may not yield any commercially viable products. Due to our limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Because the successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to precisely estimate the actual funds we will require to develop and potentially commercialize them. In addition, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue, even if we are able to commercialize any of our product candidates, to become profitable.

We are significantly dependent on the success of our PATrOL™ platform and our product candidates based on this platform. A failure of any product candidate based on this platform in clinical development would adversely affect our business and may require us to discontinue development of other product candidates based on the same therapeutic approach.

We have invested, and we expect to continue to invest, significant efforts and financial resources in the development of product candidates based on our PATrOL™ platform. Our ability to generate meaningful revenue, which may not occur for the foreseeable future, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of one or more of these product candidates using our PATrOL™ platform. We will not be able to develop new product candidates if it is found that the PATrOL™ platform does not work or create product candidates that are not safe for use in humans. Since all of our product candidates in our current pipeline are based on our PATrOL™ platform, if any product candidate fails in development as a result of an underlying problem with our PATrOL™ platform, then we may be required to discontinue development of all product candidates that are based on our therapeutic approach. If we were required to discontinue the development of such product candidates based on the PATrOL™ platform, or if any of them were to fail to receive regulatory approval or achieve sufficient market acceptance, we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability. We can provide no assurance that we would be successful at developing other product candidates based on an alternative therapeutic approach from our PATrOL™ platform.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we will initially develop our lead product candidatecandidates for particular rare genetic diseases. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities in other types of diseases that may prove to have greater treatment potential. Likewise, we may forego or delay the pursuit of opportunities with other potential product candidates that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

Management has determined that there are factors that raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

The accompanying audited financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue to operate as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business, and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classifications of liabilities that may result from uncertainty related to our ability to continue as a going concern. We have had no revenues from product sales and have incurred operating losses since inception. As of September 30, 2022, we had $23.2 million in cash and cash equivalents and during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022, we incurred a loss from operations of $33.3 million and used $29.0 million of cash in operating activities. These factors raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In October 2022, the Company announced a restructuring plan to reduce its operating expenses and extend its cash runway into the second quarter of calendar year 2024 based on current operating plans and estimates. Management believes it is probable that the restructuring plan will be effectively implemented within the next twelve months and that the restructuring plan, when implemented, will mitigate the conditions that gave rise to substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Because the Company has sufficient resources on hand to fund operations through at least the next twelve months from the date these consolidated financial statements were available to be issued, the substantial doubt has been alleviated.

Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on our ability to raise the required additional equity or debt financing to meet short and long-term operating requirements. We may also encounter business endeavors that require significant cash commitments or unanticipated problems or expenses that could result in a requirement for additional cash, including as a result of COVID-19 and its impacts. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of equity or convertible debt securities in the future, the percentage ownership of our current stockholders could be reduced, and such securities might have rights, preferences or privileges senior to our common stock. Additional financing may not be available upon acceptable terms, or at all. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not be able to take advantage of prospective business endeavors or opportunities, which could significantly and materially restrict our operations.

Given our lack of current cash flow, we will need to raise additional capital;capital to achieve our goals; however, it may be unavailable to us or, even if capital is obtained, may cause dilution or place significant restrictions on our ability to operate our business.

Since we will be unable to generate sufficient, if any, cash flow to fund our operations for the foreseeable future, we will need to seek additional equity or debt financing to provide the capital required to maintain or expand our operations.

Our existing balance of cash and cash equivalents may not be sufficient to enable us to fund our operations for at least the next twelve months from the date that this Form 10-K is filed with the SEC. In particular, we expect that we will need to obtain funding to allow us to achieve certain preclinical milestones for our NT-0100 program for HD and our NT-0200 program for DM1 and to obtain clinical data from the programs. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our use of our capital resources may be different than what we currently expect. Our operating plans and other demands on our cash resources may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, including potentially collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms or at all. If such additional financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or is not available in sufficient amounts, we may be required to delay, limit or eliminate the development of business opportunities, and our ability to achieve our business objectives, our competitiveness, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In addition, we may be required to grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our inability to fund our business could lead to the loss of your investment.investment

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

Any additional capital efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Moreover, if we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders may be reduced, and accordingly these stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may also issue equity securities that provide for rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of our common stock.

Given our need for cash and that equity issuances are the most common type of fundraising for similarly situated companies, the risk of dilution is particularly significant for our stockholders. Furthermore, the incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm expresses substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Such “going concern” opinion could impair our ability to obtain financing.

Our independent registered public accounting firm, CohnReznick LLP, has indicated in their report on our financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 that conditions exist that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern due to our recurring losses from operations. A “going concern” opinion could impair our ability to finance our operations through the sale of equity, incurring debt, or other financing alternatives. Our ability to continue as a going concern will depend upon the availability and terms of future funding. If we are unable to achieve this goal, our business would be jeopardized and we may not be able to continue. If we ceased operations, it is likely that all of our investors would lose their investment.

Our efforts to discover product candidates beyond our current product candidates may not succeed, and any product candidates we recommend for clinical development may not actually begin clinical trials.

We intend to use our technology, including our licensed technology, knowledge and expertise, to develop novel drug candidates to address some of the world’s most devastating and costly central nervous system, muscular, and other disorders, including orphan genetic and oncology indications. We intend to expand our existing pipeline of core assets by advancing drug candidate compounds from discovery programs into preclinical and clinical development. However, the process of researching and discovering drug candidate compounds is expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable. Data from our current preclinical programs may not support the clinical development of our lead compounds or other compounds from these programs, and we may not identify any additional drug compounds suitable for recommendation for clinical development. Moreover, any drug compounds we recommend for clinical development may not demonstrate, through preclinical studies, indications of safety and potential efficacy that would support advancement into clinical trials. Such findings would potentially impede our ability to maintain or expand our clinical development pipeline. Our ability to identify new drug compounds and advance them into clinical development also depends upon our ability to fund our research and development operations, and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

We have invested, and we expect to continue to invest, significant efforts and financial resources in the development of product candidates based on our PATrOL™ platform. Our ability to generate meaningful revenue, which may not occur for the foreseeable future, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of one or more of these product candidates using our PATrOL™ platform. We will not be able to develop new product candidates if it is found that the PATrOL™ platform does not work or creates product candidates that are not safe for use in humans. Since all of our product candidates in our current pipeline are based on our PATrOL™ platform, if any product candidate fails in development as a result of an underlying problem with our PATrOL™ platform, then we may be required to discontinue development of all product candidates that are based on our therapeutic approach. If we were required to discontinue the development of such product candidates based on the PATrOL™ platform, or if any of them were to fail to receive regulatory approval or achieve sufficient market acceptance, we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability. We can provide no assurance that we would be successful at developing other product candidates based on an alternative therapeutic approach from our PATrOL™ platform.

The pharmaceutical market and biotechnology industry are intensely competitive and involve a high degree of risk. If we are unable to compete effectively with existing drugs, new treatment methods and new technologies, we may be unable to commercialize successfully any drug candidates that we develop.

The pharmaceutical market and biotechnology industry are intensely competitive and rapidly changing. Many large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations, both in the U.S. and worldwide, are pursuing the development of novel drugs for the same diseases that we are targeting or expect to target. Many of our competitors have, either alone or with strategic partners:

We will face intense competition from drugs that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community for the treatment of the conditions for which we may develop drug candidates. We also expect to face competition from new drugs that enter the market. We believe there are a significant number of drugs currently under development that may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may try to develop drugs. These drugs may be more effective, safer, less expensive, introduced to market earlier, or marketed and sold more effectively or on a more cost-effective basis, than any product candidates we develop. It is possible that the potential advantages of PATrOL™-derived therapeutic candidates (including, among other potential advantages, the ability to systemically deliver drugs and get broad tissue distribution and penetration across the blood-brain barrier, minimal to no innate or adaptive immune responses after single dose or multiple-dose administration, preferential selectivity to mutant targets, and dose schedules to address the disease appropriately or that is viable in the marketplace) do not materialize.

Our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages over any product candidates we are able to develop and commercialize based on many different factors, including:

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more effective, more convenient or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their competing products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for any of our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Further, we expect that we will also compete with others when recruiting clinical trial sites and subjects for our clinical trials and when recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel.

While there are currently no approved treatments available to slow the progression of Huntington'sHuntington’s Disease (“HD”),or Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1, publicly available information shows that a number of companies are pursuing product candidates relatedseeking to HD.address the root cause of these indications. These include an investigational drug in Phase III clinical development for HD, and several ongoing clinical and preclinical programs targeting the underlying disease and symptoms in HD and the development of drugs focused on treating the symptoms associated with HD. Similarly, both companies and non-commercial sponsors are investigating agents and conducting research, clinical trials and controlled studies regarding different treatments for Myotonic Dystrophy.DM1. The success of any of these competitors could reduce or eliminate our commercial opportunity.

Any collaboration arrangement that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current and potential future product candidates.

We may seek collaboration arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for the development or commercialization of our current and potential future product candidates. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, execute and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we choose to enter into such arrangements, and the terms of the arrangements may not be favorable to us. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. As such, our inability to control our collaborators, and the potentially adverse results of our collaborators, may materially and adversely affect our product candidates and, more generally, our PATrOL™ platform, and we may not be able to conduct our program in the manner or on the time schedule it currently contemplates, which could negatively impact our business.

If our potential future 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 of our platform technology and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology.

Finally, disagreements between parties to a collaboration arrangement can lead to delays in developing or commercializing the applicable product candidate and can be difficult to resolve in a mutually beneficial manner. In some cases, collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies and other third parties are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to obtain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S. In the U.S. and Europe, obtaining orphan drug approval may allow us to obtain financial incentives, such as an extended period of exclusivity during which only we are allowed to market the orphan drug for the orphan indications that we are developing. While we may seek orphan drug designation from the FDA for any of our product candidates, we, or any future collaborators, may not be granted orphan drug designations for our product candidates in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions.

Even if we or any future collaborators obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we or such collaborators may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. Generally, a product with orphan drug designation only becomes entitled to orphan drug exclusivity if it receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, in

which case the FDA or the EMA will be precluded from approving another marketing application for the same drug for that indication for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable exclusivity period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or the EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we or any future collaborators obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because FDA has taken the position that, under certain circumstances, another drug with the same active chemical and pharmacological characteristics, or moiety, can be approved for the same condition. Specifically, the FDA’s regulations provide that it can approve another drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Our operations have been adversely affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and we face risks that could impact our business.

A novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The virus has spread globally and includes a significant number of cases in the U.S., Europe and Asia. On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency. As of September 30, 2022, the national state of emergency is still in effect, however states have reopened their economies at various levels, COVID-19 vaccinations are being distributed in mass quantities. However, with new variants of COVID-19 being detected across multiple countries, it still remains unclear how the current trends of states reopening their economies will be impacted and what the overall impact of COVID-19 will be on our business.

We have relationships with contract research organizations to conduct certain pre-clinical programs and testing and other services in Europe and certain of those business operations have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are further subject to potential business interruptions arising from new protective measures that may be taken by the governmental or other agencies or governing bodies. We also conduct limited operations within Asia through third-party contract manufacturing organizations whose operations have been and may continue to be negatively affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Shipping and importation of contracted manufactured goods could also be negatively affected. In addition, certain of our collaborative relationships with academic research institutions in the United States have been and may continue to be materially and adversely impacted by protective measures taken by those institutions or federal and state agencies and governing bodies to restrict access to, or suspend operations at, such facilities. Such protective measures, including quarantines, travel restrictions and business shutdowns, have impacted and may continue to negatively affect our core operations. We have taken precautionary measures aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state and local guidelines that are intended to help minimize the risk of the virus to our employees, including the provision of personal protective equipment, suspension of non-essential travel worldwide for our employees, and we discourage employee attendance at other gatherings. Several of our employees work remotely. Business disruptions elsewhere in the world could also negatively affect the sources and availability of components and materials that are essential to the operation of our business.

Extended periods of interruption to our U.S. operations or those of our contract research and manufacturing organizations due to the coronavirus outbreak could adversely impact the growth of our business and could cause us to cease or delay operations. For example, one of our external contract research providers, was forced to shut down its vivarium where the in vivo testing for the NT0100 program was ongoing, and this disruption in operations contributed to a delay and may also incur additional future delays in that program. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party facility and establish a contractual relationship in connection with such facilities, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms that would cause additional delay and increased expense, including as a result of additional required FDA approvals, and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our business and results of operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. This includes new information that may emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus, the spread and proliferation of the coronavirus around the world, and the actions taken to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

We are subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks, any of which could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our product candidates.

The process of manufacturing our product candidates is complex, highly regulated, and subject to several risks. For example, the process of manufacturing our product candidates is extremely susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, low yielding processes, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes for any of our product candidates could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. In addition, the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made could be adversely affected by equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, public health crises, pandemics and epidemics, such as a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19), power failures and numerous other factors. For instance, our therapeutic molecules are complex and comprised of both peptides and nucleic acids, and it may be difficult or impossible to find Good Laboratory Practice- (“GLP”)GLP and Current Good Manufacturing Practice- (“cGMP”)cGMP grade manufacturers, manufacturing may be cost prohibitive, we or our third-party manufacturers may not be able to manufacture product candidates in a timely manner or within specification, or manufacturing may not be available to fulfill regulatory requirements. In addition, we or our third-party manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates in a timely manner.

at the necessary scale to meet our development and commercialization requirements.

In addition, any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We also may need to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for product candidates that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek costlier manufacturing alternatives.

We rely, and will continue to rely, predominantly, on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels, prices, or timelines.

We have the capability internally to manufacture small quantities of our drugs for preclinical studies. However, we do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our clinical drug supplies for use in our clinical trials, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our product candidates, and there may be a need to identify alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and, if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to develop our own commercial organization or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may be unable to generate significant revenues.

We do not have a sales and marketing organization, and we have no experience as a company in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may be required to develop our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or make arrangements with a third party to perform sales and marketing services. Developing a sales force for any resulting product or any product resulting from any of our other product candidates is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. We may be unable to establish and manage an effective sales force in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all, and any sales force we do establish may not be capable of generating sufficient demand for our product candidates. To the extent that we enter into arrangements with collaborators or other third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we marketed and sold our product candidates independently. If we are unable to establish adequate sales and marketing capabilities, independently or with others, we may not be able to generate significant revenues and may not become profitable.

The commercial success of our product candidates depends upon their market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community.

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

In addition, the potential market opportunity for our product candidates is difficult to precisely estimate. Our estimates of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. Independent sources have not verified all of our assumptions. If any of these assumptions proves to be inaccurate, then the actual market for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunity. If the actual market for our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited, it may be harder than expected to raise funds and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability. If we fail to achieve market acceptance of our product candidates in the U.S. and abroad, our revenue will be limited, and it will be more difficult to achieve profitability.

If we fail to obtain and sustain an adequate level of reimbursement for our potential products by third-party payors, potential future sales would be materially adversely affected.

There will be no viable commercial market for our product candidates, if approved, without reimbursement from third-party payors. Reimbursement policies may be affected by future healthcare reform measures. We cannot be certain that reimbursement will be available for our current product candidates or any other product candidate we may develop. Additionally, even if there is a viable commercial market, if the level of reimbursement is below our expectations, our anticipated revenue and gross margins will be adversely affected.

Third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question and challenge the coverage of and the prices charged for drugs. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors. Reimbursement rates may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. There is a current trend in the U.S. healthcare industry toward cost containment.

Large public and private payors, managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations and similar organizations are exerting increasing influence on decisions regarding the use of, and reimbursement levels for, particular treatments. Such third-party payors, including Medicare, may question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit coverage of or reimbursement for newly approved healthcare products. In particular, third-party payors may limit the covered indications. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in product revenues being lower than anticipated. We believe our drugs will be priced significantly higher than existing generic drugs and consistent with current branded drugs. If we are unable to show a significant benefit relative to existing generic drugs, Medicare, Medicaid and private payors may not be willing to provide reimbursement for our drugs, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of our products gaining market acceptance.

We expect that private insurers will consider the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety and tolerability of our product candidates in determining whether to approve reimbursement for such product candidates and at what level. Obtaining these approvals can be a time consuming and expensive process. Our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected if we do not receive approval for reimbursement of our product candidates from private insurers on a timely or satisfactory basis. Limitations on coverage could also be imposed at the local Medicare carrier level or by fiscal intermediaries. Medicare Part B, which covers medical insurance to Medicare patients as discussed below, does not require participating insurance plans to cover all drugs that have been approved by the FDA. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if Part B medical insurance were to limit access to, or deny or limit reimbursement of, our product candidates.

Reimbursement systems in international markets vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. In many countries, the product candidate cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. The negotiation process in some countries can exceed 12 months. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies.

If the prices for our product candidates are reduced or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement of our drugs, our future revenue, cash flows and prospects for profitability will suffer.

We are exposed to product liability, non-clinicalnonclinical and clinical liability risks which could place a substantial financial burden upon us, should lawsuits be filed against us.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability and other liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical formulations and products. In addition, the use in our anticipated clinical trials of pharmaceutical products and the subsequent sale of product candidates by us, if approved, or our potential collaborators may cause us to bear a portion of or all product liability risks. A successful liability claim or series of claims brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because we do not currently have any clinical trials ongoing, we do not currently carry product liability insurance. We anticipate obtaining such insurance upon initiation of our clinical development activities; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business if judgments therewith exceed our insurance coverage.

If we fail to retain current members of our management, or to attract and keep additional key personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. As of January7, 2020,September 30, 2022, we had nine37 full-time employees. In October 2022, in connection with the Company’s reprioritization of clinical and research initiatives and restructuring of operations, we reduced our workforce by approximately 60%, resulting in 15 full-time employees. This reduction in workforce was designed to reduce costs and reallocate resources while maintaining the personnel needed to support the Company’s key programs, including the PATrOL™ platform, and refocused pipeline. Further, since September 30, 2022, the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer, as well as its Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer, have resigned. The Company has entered into retention arrangements with certain employees to remain at the Company. We

will rely primarily on outsourcing research, development and clinical trial activities, and manufacturing operations, as well as other functions critical to our business. We believe this approach enhances our ability to focus on our core product opportunities, allocate resources efficiently to different projects and allocate internal resources more effectively. We have filled several key open positions and are currently recruiting for a few remaining positions. However, competitionCompetition for qualified personnel is intense. We may not be successful in attracting qualified personnel to fulfill our current or future needs. In the event we are unable to fill critical open employment positions, we may need to delay our operational activities and goals, including the development of our product candidates, and may have difficulty in meeting our obligations as a public company. We do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our employees.

In addition, competitors and others are likely in the future to attempt to recruit our employees. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, the inability to attract or retain highly qualified personnel in the future or delays in hiring such personnel, particularly senior management and other technical personnel, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the replacement of key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives.

From time to time, our management seeks the advice and guidance of certain scientific advisors and consultants regarding clinical and regulatory development programs and other customary matters. These scientific advisors and consultants are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts with, other entities that may limit their availability to us. In addition, our scientific advisors may have arrangements with other companies to assist those companies in developing products or technologies that may compete with us.

We willmay need to increase the size of our organization and may not successfully manage our growth.

We are a preclinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a small number of employees, and our management systems currently in place are not likely to be adequate to support our future growth plans. Our ability to grow and to manage our growth effectively will require us to hire, train, retain, manage and motivate additional employees and to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems. These demands also may require the hiring of additional senior management personnel or the development of additional expertise by our senior management personnel. Hiring a significant number of additional employees, particularly those at the management level, would increase our expenses significantly. Moreover, if we fail to expand and enhance our operational, financial and management systems in conjunction with our potential future growth, such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because our Chief Executive Officer is involved with several unaffiliated privately-heldprivately held companies, he may experience conflicts of interest and competing demands for his time and attention.

Dietrich A. Stephan, Ph.D., our Chief Executive Officer, is a member of the governing bodies of several unaffiliated privately-heldprivately held companies, as well as a general partner of Cyto Ventures. Although Dr. Stephan expects to devote substantially all of his time to us, he expects to continue in each of these positions for the foreseeable future. Conflicts of interest could arise with respect to business opportunities that could be advantageous to third party organizations affiliated with Dr. Stephan, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand.

The majority of our current management lacks public company experience, which could put us at greater risk of incurring fines or regulatory actions for failure to comply with federal securities laws and could put us at a competitive disadvantage and require our management to devote additional time and resources to ensure compliance with applicable corporate governance requirements.

The majority of our current executive management do not have experience in managing and operating a public company, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to quickly respond to problems or adequately address issues and matters applicable to public companies. Any failure to comply with federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, since certain of our current executive officers do not have experience managing and operating a public company, we may need to dedicate additional time and resources to comply with legally mandated corporate governance policies relative to our competitors whose management teams have more public company experience.

We rely significantly on information technology and any failure, inadequacy, interruption or security lapse of that technology, including any cybersecurity incidents, could harm our ability to operate our business effectively.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of third parties with which we contract are vulnerable to damage from cyber-attacks, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures, accidents or security breaches could cause interruptions in our operations and could result in a material disruption of our drug development and preclinical and clinical activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, suffer loss or harm to our intellectual property rights and the further research, development and commercial efforts of our products and product candidates could be delayed. The loss of drug development or clinical trial data 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 our development

programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, if we are held liable for a claim against which we are not insured or for damages exceeding the limits of our insurance coverage, whether arising out of cybersecurity matters, or from some other matter, that claim could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our employees, consultants, third-party vendors and collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee, consultant, third-party vendor or collaborator fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by our employees, consultants, third-party vendors or collaborators could include, among other things, intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended 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 commissions, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee, consultant, vendor or collaborator misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of preclinical or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter such misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and result in the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions against us.

Business disruptions such as natural disasters could seriously harm our future revenues and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

We and our suppliers may experience a disruption in our and their business as a result of natural disasters. A significant natural disaster, such as an earthquake, hurricane, flood or fire, could severely damage or destroy our headquarters or facilities or the facilities of our manufacturers or suppliers, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, terrorist acts or acts of war targeted at the U.S., and specifically the Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaPA, Boston/Cambridge, MA, and greater New York, New YorkNY regions, could cause damage or disruption to us, our employees, facilities, partners and suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the global economy, energy supplies and raw materials is uncertain, but may prove to negatively impact our business and operations.

The short and long-term implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are difficult to predict at this time. We continue to monitor any adverse impact that the outbreak of war in Ukraine and the subsequent institution of sanctions against Russia by the United States and several European and Asian countries may have on the global economy in general, on our business and operations and on the businesses and operations of our suppliers and customers. For example, a prolonged conflict may result in challenges associated with timely receipt of customer payments and banking transactions, increased inflation, escalating energy prices and constrained availability, and thus increasing costs, of raw materials. We will continue to monitor this fluid situation and develop contingency plans as necessary to address any disruptions to our business operations as they develop. To the extent the war in Ukraine may adversely affect our business as discussed herein, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described herein. Such risks include, but are not limited to, adverse effects on macroeconomic conditions, including inflation; disruptions to our global technology infrastructure, including through cyberattack, ransom attack, or cyber-intrusion; adverse changes in international trade policies and relations; our ability to maintain or increase our product prices; disruptions in global supply chains; our exposure to foreign currency fluctuations; and constraints, volatility, or disruption in the capital markets, any of which could negatively affect our business and financial condition.

We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. Additional potential transactions that we may consider include a variety of

different business arrangements, including acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out-licensing or in-licensing of products, product candidates or technologies. Any such transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges or disrupt our management or business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, these transactions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

For example, in late April 2021, we completed our acquisition of infrastructure, materials and intellectual property for peptide-nucleic acid scaffolds from Vera Therapeutics, Inc. (“Vera”). We are currently in the process of integrating the acquired assets in our operations and may experience delays and challenges as part of the integration process. We also may not realize the benefits we expect to achieve through the acquisition of Vera’s assets.

Accordingly,In addition, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any other transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The estimates and judgments we make, or the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our financial statements could prove inaccurate.

Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.United States generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of our assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, the amounts of charges accrued by us and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We cannot assure, however, that our estimates, or the assumptions underlying them, will not change over time or otherwise prove inaccurate. For example, our estimates as they relate to anticipated timelines and milestones for our preclinical development or clinical trials may prove to be inaccurate. If this is the case, we may be required to restate our financial statements, which could, in turn, subject us to securities class action litigation or regulatory investigation or action. Defending against such potential litigation or regulatory action relating to a restatement of our financial statements would be expensive and would require significant attention and resources of our management. Moreover, our insurance to cover our obligations with respect to the ultimate resolution of any such litigation or regulatory action may be inadequate. As a result of these factors, any such potential litigation or regulatory action could have a material adverse effect on our financial results or harm our business.

We may be unable to sell or otherwise monetize, the assets and technologies of the Company as conducted prior to the completion of the Merger, in which case we may be required to take write-downs, write-offs and impairment or other charges associated with the carrying values of such assets. Any such charges could negatively affect our business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition and results of operations.

Previously, Ohr acquired the SKS Ocular 1 LLC sustained release technology, which was designed to develop best in class drug formulations for ocular disease (the “SKS Assets”) and the exclusive rights to an animal model for dry macular degeneration and rights to produce and use carboxyethylpyrrole (“CEP”) for research, clinical and commercial applications (the “CEP Assets”). In September 2019, we terminated the licenses for the SKS Assets and the CEP Assets, as there would be substantial costs associated with continuing to maintain such assets and attempts to monetize such assets would be a distraction to our management and other employees and an inefficient use of their time. Our management and board of directors continue to evaluate whether to further pursue monetizing the remaining assets associated with our pre-Merger activities, including selling, discontinuing or adjusting such assets. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful at such efforts or sell or otherwise monetize such assets on acceptable terms, if at all. We may be required to take write-offs or write-downs, and impairment or other charges associated with classifying such remaining assets as held-for-sale and recording the carrying values of such assets at fair market value. As a result, we may be forced to write-down or write-off such assets, in some cases completely, or incur impairment or other charges that could negatively affect our business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition and results of operations.

We have determined that our accounting treatment and valuation of consideration pertaining to the license of our PATrOL™technology should be modified. This change in accounting treatment has required us to adjust our financial statements and will likely result in adjustments of our previously reported financial statements. If we identify errors in our financial reporting in the future, we may be required to restate previously reported financial statements and any such restatement may subject us to regulatory penalties and could cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements, our management and the audit committee of our board of directors determined that our accounting treatment and valuations pertaining to the PATrOL™ technology license should be modified. This change in accounting treatment resulted in an increase in total operating expenses of approximately $0.9 million on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and a decrease in intangible assets of approximately $1.5 million on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. In connection with the valuation adjustments to the PATrOL™ technology license, we also determined that valuations pertaining to certain share-based awards should also be adjusted. This change in valuation to share-based awards resulted in a decrease in total operating expenses of approximately $0.3 million on our Consolidated Statements of Operations. This change in accounting treatment will likely lead to adjustments of our previously reported financial statements. If we are required to restate any of our financial statements in the future, we may be subject to regulatory penalties and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause our share price to decline.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in issued patents that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part. In addition, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technologies.

In the future we may, and presently do, in-license intellectual property from licensors. We may rely on these licensors to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be in-licensed. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

The growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire or in-license additional proprietary rights. For example, our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties. Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing pharmaceutical compounds. These pharmaceutical compounds may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to provide a companion diagnostic test or tests with our product candidates. These diagnostic test or tests may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, which may allow our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because several of our programs currently require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to maintain and exploit these proprietary rights. In addition, we may need to acquire or in-license additional intellectual property in the future. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. We face competition with regard to acquiring and in-licensing third-party intellectual property rights, including from a number of more established companies. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling

to assign or license intellectual property rights to us. We also may be unable to acquire or in-license third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow it to make an appropriate return on our investment, and we may not be able to market products or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents.

We may enter into collaboration agreements with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate development of our current or future preclinical product candidates. Typically, these agreements include an option for the company to negotiate a license to the institution’s intellectual property rights resulting from the collaboration. Even with such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to license rights from a collaborating institution, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our desired program.

If we are unable to successfully obtain required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain our existing intellectual property rights, we may need to abandon development of the related program and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient patent and other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and technology, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market or successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. We will only be able to protect our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them. 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.

Composition-of-matter patents on the active pharmaceutical ingredient are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. 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 products 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 may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, inventorship, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being 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 around 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. 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 we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office or the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our drug discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore,

the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we in-license intellectual property and other rights from third parties or otherwise experiences disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

OurWe may enter into license agreements with universities. A license agreement with CMU (the “CMU License Agreement”), as the licensor (the “Licensor”), is important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. The CMU License Agreement imposes, and we expect that future license agreements willmay impose various royalties, sublicensing fees and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or if we file for bankruptcy, we may be required to make certain payments to the Licensor,licensor, we may lose the exclusivity of our license, or the Licensorlicensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market products covered by the license. Additionally, the royalties and other payments associated with these licenses could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Pursuant to the terms of our license agreement with CMU (as amended, the CMU“CMU License Agreement, the LicensorAgreement”), CMU has the right to terminate the CMU License Agreement with respect to the program licensed under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (i) if we do not pay amounts when due and within the applicable cure periods or (ii) if we file or have filed against us a petition in bankruptcy or makesmake an assignment for the benefit of creditors. In the event the CMU License Agreement is terminated by the Licensor,CMU, all licenses (or, in the determination of the Licensor,CMU, the exclusivity of such licenses) granted to us by the LicensorCMU will terminate immediately.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology may be controlled solely by the licensor. If our licensor fails to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we in-license, then we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. In certain cases, we may control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including, but not limited to:

If disputes over intellectual property and other rights that we have in-licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. If we fail to comply with any such obligations to our licensor, such licensor may terminate their licenses to us, in which case we would not be able to market products covered by these licenses. The loss of our licenses would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be required to pay royalties and sublicensing fees pursuant to the CMU License Agreement,university licensing agreements, which could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any product candidates that we may seek to commercialize.

Under the terms of the CMU License Agreement,If our sales are covered by a licensing agreement with a university, then we willmay be required to pay royalties on future worldwide net product sales and a percentage of sublicensing fees that we may earn. Pursuant to the CMU License Agreement, we must achieve certain milestones to demonstrate certain developments of the licensed product, and, subject to certain conditions, we will pay to CMU royalties at a low single-digit percentage of aggregate annual net sales of licensed products and a percentage at the higher range of the bottom third of sublicensing fees. These royalty payments and sublicensing fees could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any product candidates that we may seek to commercialize.

We may not be able to protect our proprietary or licensed technology in the marketplace.

We depend on our ability to protect our proprietary or licensed technology. We rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality, licensing and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. Our success depends in large part on our ability and any licensor’s or licensee’s ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our proprietary or licensed technology and product candidates. We currently in-license some of our intellectual property rights to develop our product candidates and may in-license additional intellectual property rights in the future. We cannot be certain that patent enforcement activities by our current or future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. We also cannot be certain that our current or future licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We believe we will be able to obtain, through prosecution of patent applications covering our owned technology and technology licensed from others, adequate patent protection for our proprietary drug technology, including those related to our in-licensed intellectual property. If we are compelled to spend significant time and money protecting or enforcing our licensed patents and future patents we may own, designing around patents held by others or licensing or acquiring, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. If we are unable to effectively protect the intellectual property that we own or in-license, other companies may be able to offer the same or similar products for sale, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The patents of others from whom we may license technology, and any future patents we may own, may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing the same or similar products or limit the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection for licensed patents, licensed pending patent applications and potential future patent applications and patents could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various governmental patent agencies outside of the U.S. in several stages over the lifetime of the applicable patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If this occurs with respect to our in-licensed patents or patent applications we may file in the future, our competitors might be able to use our technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The patent positionsposition of pharmaceutical productsand biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which many legal principles remain unresolved. In recent years patent rights have been the subject of significant litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are often complexhighly uncertain. Our pending and uncertain. The breadth of claims allowedfuture patent applications may not result in pharmaceutical patents being issued in the U.S.United States or in other jurisdictions which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and many jurisdictions outside of the U.S. is not consistent. For example, in many jurisdictions, the support standards for pharmaceutical patents are becoming increasingly strict. Some countries prohibit method of treatment claims in patents.products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretationsinterpretation of the patent laws in the U.S.United States and other countries may diminish the value

of our licensedpatents or owned intellectual property or create uncertainty.narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, publicationthe laws of information relatedforeign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our current product candidatespatents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In addition, the U.S. Patent and potentialTrademark Office, or USPTO, might require that the term of a patent issuing from a pending patent application be disclaimed and limited to the term of another patent that is commonly owned or names a common inventor. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in the patent claims of our owned or in-licensed patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part. This result could limit our ability to stop or prevent us from obtainingstopping others from using or enforcing patents relatingcommercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to theseoperate. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours or otherwise provide us with a competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and potential products, including without limitation composition-of-matter patents, which are generally believedmay not adequately protect our rights or permit us to offer the strongest patent protection.gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

Patents that we currently licenseslicense and patents that we may own or license in the future do not necessarily ensure the protection of our licensed or owned intellectual property for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, the following:

If we encounter delays in our development or clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our potential products under patent protection would be reduced.

Our competitors may be able to circumvent our licensed patents or future patents we may own by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated new drug applications to the FDA in which our competitors claim that our licensed patents or any future patents we may own are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Alternatively, our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our licensed patents or any future patents we may own, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our licensed patents or any future patents we may own invalid or unenforceable. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Even if we own or in-license valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

We also may rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and we have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our collaborators and suppliers. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our information to competitors or use such information to compete with us. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. If our confidential or proprietary information is divulged to or acquired by third parties, including our competitors, our competitive position in the marketplace will be harmed and this would have a material adverse effect on our business.

The issuanceFiling, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of asome countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other countries. Competitors may use our technologies in countries where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may infringe our patents in territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not conclusive as strong as in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to its inventorship, scope, ownership, priority, validityprevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain countries. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to pharmaceutical and biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or enforceability. In this regard,marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign countries could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may challengenot prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our licensed patentsefforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or any future patents we may own in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and potential products. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized.license.

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which may prevent or delay our drug development efforts and prevent us from commercializing or increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. For example, there could be issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe. We have licensed intellectual property from CMU under the CMU License Agreement, and prior generation intellectual property was licensed to other entities. Such intellectual property, in conjunction with further developed technologies for gene editing therapies using such intellectual property, may overlap with our own intellectual property.

As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert our product candidates infringe the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing

our product candidates, technologies or methods. Furthermore, because the nucleic acid therapeutics intellectual property landscape is still evolving and our product candidates have not been through clinical trials or commercialized, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing third party rights. There are numerous companies that have pending patent applications and issued patents directed to certain aspects of nucleic acid therapeutics. We are aware of third partythird-party competitors in the oligonucleotide therapeutics space, whose patent filings and/or issued patents may include claims directed to targets and/or products related to some of our programs. It is possible that at the time that we commercialize our products these third-party patent portfolios may include issued patent claims that cover our product candidates or critical features of their production or use. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third partythird-party intellectual property rights cover, or may be alleged to cover, our product candidates or elements thereof, or methods of manufacture or use relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize product candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third partythird-party intellectual property right concerned or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms.

Moreover, patent applications are in some cases maintained in secrecy until patents are issued. The publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature frequently occurs substantially later than the date on which the underlying discoveries were made and patent applications were filed. Because patents can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or potential products infringe. For example, pending applications may exist that claim or can be amended to claim subject matter that our product candidates or potential products infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates.

We cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our issued patents or our pending applications, or that we were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us for patent or other intellectual property infringement. These lawsuits are costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, potential products or methods either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the U.S., proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If a court holds that any third-party patents are valid, enforceable and cover our products or their use, the holders of any of these patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our products unless it acquires or obtains a license under the applicable patents or until the patents expire.

If a third party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to: infringement and other intellectual property claims which, regardless of merit, may be expensive and time-consuming to litigate and may divert our management’s attention from our core business; substantial damages for infringement, which we may have to pay if a court decides that the product candidate or technology at issue infringes on or violates the third party’s rights, and, if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner’s attorneys’ fees; a court prohibiting us from developing, manufacturing, marketing or selling our product candidates, or from using our proprietary technologies, unless the third party licenses its product rights to us, which it is not required to do; if a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees and other amounts, and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our products; and redesigning our product candidates or processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time.

We may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-exam, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the EPO, or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

We may not be able to enter into licensing arrangements or make other arrangements at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms. Any inability to secure licenses or alternative technology could result in delays in the introduction of our product candidates or lead to prohibition of the manufacture or sale of products by us. 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. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product candidate. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing pharmaceutical compounds. These pharmaceutical compounds may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to provide a companion diagnostic test or tests with our product candidates. These diagnostic test or tests may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations.

We, or our licensors, may not be able to detect infringement against our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, which may be especially difficult for manufacturing processes or formulation patents. Even if we or our licensors detect infringement by a third party of our owned or in-licensed patents, we or our licensors, as the case may be, may choose not to pursue litigation against or settlement with the third party. If we, or our licensors, later sue such third party for patent infringement, the third party may have certain legal defenses available to it, which otherwise would not be available except for the delay between when the infringement was first detected and when the suit was brought. Such legal defenses may make it impossible for us or our licensors to enforce our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, against such third party.

Any claims or lawsuits relating to infringement of intellectual property rights brought by or against us will be costly and time consuming and may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

WeCompetitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or other violations, we may be required to initiate litigation to enforce or defend our licensed and owned intellectual property. Lawsuits to protect our intellectual property rights can be very time consuming and costly. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry generally. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating expenses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

In any infringement litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are resolved. Further, any claims we assert against a perceived infringer could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we have infringed their patents. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of the patents we assert is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to prevent the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In such a case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such marks.

In addition, our licensed patents and patent applications, and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future, could face other challenges, such as interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, re-examination proceedings and

other forms of post-grant review. Any of these challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of, or in a narrowing of the scope of, any of our licensed patents and patent applications and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future subject to challenge. Any of these challenges, regardless of their success, would likely be time-consuming and expensive to defend and resolve and would divert our management and scientific personnel’s time and attention.

Any issued patents we may own covering our product candidates could be narrowed or found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, including the USPTO.

ChangesAny of our intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated despite measures we take to obtain patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology. For example, if we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S. and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an inequitable conduct allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent lawwithheld material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could diminishchallenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the valueduty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable.

With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, for example, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on a product candidate. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in general, thereby impairinga manner that would limit our ability to protectenforce such claims against the defendant and others. The cost of defending such a challenge, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and any resulting loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on one or more of our product candidates or potential products.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies,and our success is heavily dependent onbusiness. Enforcing our intellectual property rights against third parties may also cause such third parties to file other counterclaims against us, which could be costly to defend, particularly patents. Obtainingin a foreign jurisdiction, and enforcingcould require us to pay substantial damages, cease the sale of certain products or enter into a license agreement and pay royalties (which may not be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all). Any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are also likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technologicaldevelopment of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and legal complexitytheir assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our ownership of our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is costly, time-consumingimportant to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and inherently uncertain. For example, the U.S. previously enactedbe a distraction to management and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Specifically, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law and included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, and manyother employees. Any of the provisions became effective in March 2013. However, it may take the courts years to interpret the provisions of the Leahy-Smith Act, and the implementation of the statute could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our licensed and future patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our licensed and future patents, all of whichforegoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.operations and prospects.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court inAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. precludes a claim to a nucleic acid having a stated nucleotide sequence which is identical to a sequence found in nature and unmodified. We are currently not aware of an immediate impact of this decision on our patents or patent applications which contain modifications that we believe are not found in nature. However, this decision has yet to be clearly interpreted by courts and by the USPTO. We cannot make assurances that the interpretations of this decision or subsequent rulings will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we might obtain in the future.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our licensed and owned technologies in jurisdictions where we have not licensed or obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain or license patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents, and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our licensed patents and future patents we may own, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our licensed and owned intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. For example, China currently affords less protection to a company’s intellectual property than some other jurisdictions. As such, the lack of strong patent and other intellectual property protection in China may significantly increase our vulnerability regarding unauthorized disclosure or use of our intellectual property and undermine our competitive position. Proceedings to enforce our future patent rights, if any, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We may be unable to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary and licensed technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, employees, consultants, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

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

We expect to employ individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims against us, we may be subject to claims that us or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees.

We may become involved in disputes with our employees, consultants, or independent contractors regarding the ownership of intellectual property.

We will rely on our employees, consultants, and independent contractors to develop intellectual property that we will own and commercialize. These persons may dispute the terms of their agreements with us, for example, their obligation to assign intellectual property, work product, and know how to us. In case of such a dispute, the person may assert that he owns the work that he performed on our behalf, and that all corresponding intellectual property rights vest in him. The person may assert ownership of the intellectual property, refuse to disclose the intellectual property to us, and fail to execute documents essential to document our ownership. If the person withholds the disclosure of new technology, we may not even know what technology has been withheld from us, or that the technology even exists. In this case, we may never be subjectable to claims challengingidentify and perfect title to the inventorshiptechnology. Such a person would pose a significant risk of disclosure of our licensed patents, any future patents we may own and otherconfidential intellectual property.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging If the inventorship of our licensed patents or our licensed or owned intellectual property, we may inperson chose to reveal the future be subjecttechnology to claims that former employees, collaborators or othera third parties have an interest in our licensed patents or other licensed or owned intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example,party, we may have inventorship disputes ariseno means or opportunity to prevent the disclosure. Our confidential intellectual property would then become known to third parties, possibly even without us knowing about the disclosure. We would suffer material adverse effects from conflicting obligationsthe disclosure and misuse of consultants or others who are involvedour intellectual property. To enforce our rights would require a complex dispute of state and federal intellectual property law to take place in developinga state court. The outcome of such a dispute in a state court, especially in a jury trial, is highly uncertain.

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

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be necessary to defend against theseavailable, but the life of a patent, and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages,the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may lose valuable intellectual propertybe open to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not

provide us with sufficient rights such as exclusive ownershipto exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

If we do not obtain additional protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar foreign legislation extending the terms of our licensed patents and any future patents we may own, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

at all.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specificsconditions of any FDA regulatorymarketing approval forof our product candidates, one or more of our licensed U.S. patents or future U.S. patents that we may license or own may be eligible for limited patent term restorationextension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union and certain other countries. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during drugproduct development and the FDA regulatory review process. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of a New Drug Application (“NDA”), plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval by the FDA.

The application for patent term extension is subject to approval by the USPTO, in conjunction with the FDA. It takes at least six months to obtain approval of the application for patent term extension. WeHowever, we may not be grantedreceive an extension because of, for example, failingif we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, failingfail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failingfail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period orlength of the scope of patent protection affordedextension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will havecan enforce our patent rights for the right to exclusively market ourapplicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain earlier approval ofto market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our ability to generate revenuescompetitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.harmed.

Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

We are very early in our development efforts. All of our product candidates are still in preclinical development. If we are unable to advance our product candidates to clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are very early in our development efforts, and all of our product candidates are still in preclinical development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and preclinical development of antisense oligonucleotidePATrOL-enabled therapies, (“ASOs”), including the development programprograms for the treatment of Huntington’s Disease.Disease and Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1. Our ability to generate product revenues, which it doeswe do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. In addition, certain of our product candidate development programs contemplate the development of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation as medical devices and must themselves be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Furthermore, the FDA has relatively limited experience with nucleic acid therapeutics, particularly PNAs, which may increase the complexity, uncertainty and length of the regulatory review process for our product candidates. To date, the FDA has approved few nucleic acid therapeutics for marketing and commercialization, and the FDA and our foreign counterparts have not yet established any definitive policies, practices or guidelines specifically in relation to these drugs. The lack of policies, practices or guidelines specific to nucleic acid therapeutics may hinder or slow review by the FDA of any regulatory filings that we may submit. Moreover, the FDA may respond to these submissions by defining requirements we may not have anticipated. Such responses could lead to significant delays in the development of our product candidates. In addition, because there may be approved treatments for some of the diseases for which we may seek approval, in order to receive regulatory approval, we may need to demonstrate through clinical trials that the product candidates we develop to treat these diseases, if any, are not only safe and effective, but safer or more effective than existing products. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been increased public and political pressure on the FDA with respect to the approval process for new drugs, and the FDA’s standards, especially regarding drug safety, appear to have become more stringent. As a result of the foregoing factors, we may never receive regulatory approval to market and commercialize any product candidate.

Preclinical and clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, and involve uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, results of earlier preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future preclinical studies or clinical trials.

All of our product candidates are still in the preclinical stage, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned INDs in the U.S., or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. It is also possible that the FDA may require changes to our proposed clinical development programs. For example, our nonclinical studies for our DM1 program are using a proposed formulation of the NT-0200 development candidate that contains an excipient in quantities in excess of current FDA guidance. We believe that no additional nonclinical studies or modifications to the planned nonclinical toxicology studies related to the concentration of the excipient in the formulation will be needed to support clinical development. We cannot assure you that this will be the case, however. It is also impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will complete clinical trials evaluating their safety and effectiveness in humans or will receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our PATrOL™ platform and product candidates are safe and effective in humans for use in each target indication. To date, we have never advanced a product candidate into a clinical trial. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical or clinical trial process. Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory

approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, the results of preclinical studies and future clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

This product candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in the anticipated clinical trials compared to the completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed from preclinical through early to late stagelate-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for late stagelate-stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.

Any of these changes could make the results of our anticipated clinical trials or other future clinical trials we may initiate less predictable and could cause our product candidates to perform differently, including causing toxicities, which could delay completion of our clinical trials, delay approval of our product candidates, and/or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

We may rely on third parties to conduct investigator-sponsored clinical trials of our product candidates. Any failure by a third party to meet our obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for other product candidates.

We may rely on academic and private non-academic institutions to conduct and sponsor preclinical and clinical trials relating to our product candidates. We will not control the design or conduct of the investigator-sponsored trials, and it is possible that the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities will not view these investigator-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future preclinical and clinical trials, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results. For example, we collaborate with, and rely on, academic centers to conduct preclinical and non-investigator-sponsored research and it is possible that the interests of such academic centers may not be aligned with our interests.

Such arrangements will likely provide us certain information rights with respect to the investigator-sponsored trials, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory filings, resulting from the investigator-sponsored trials. However, we would not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from investigator-sponsored trials, nor would we own the data from the investigator-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the investigator-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development of our product candidates. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data proves to be inadequate compared to the first-hand knowledge we might have gained had the investigator-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future preclinical or clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected.

Additionally, the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with the sufficiency of our right of reference to the preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data generated by these investigator-sponsored trials, or our interpretation of preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data from these investigator-sponsored trials. If so, the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional preclinical, manufacturing, or clinical data before we may initiate our anticipated trials and/or may not accept such additional data as adequate to initiate our anticipated trials.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or have other significant adverse implications on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Undesirable side effects observed in preclinical studies or in clinical trials with our product candidates could interrupt, delay or halt their development and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities for

any or all targeted indications or adversely affect the marketability of any product candidates developed using our PATrOL™ platform that receive regulatory approval. In turn, this could eliminate or limit our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates may exhibit adverse effects in preclinical toxicology studies and adverse interactions with other drugs. There are also risks associated with additional requirements the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may impose for marketing approval with regard to a particular disease.

Our product candidates may require a risk management program that could include patient and healthcare provider education, usage guidelines, appropriate promotional activities, a post-marketing observational study and ongoing safety and reporting mechanisms, among other requirements. Prescribing could be limited to physician specialists or physicians trained in the use of the drug, or could be limited to a more restricted patient population. Any risk management program required for approval of our product candidates could potentially have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Undesirable side effects involving our product candidates may have other significant adverse implications on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example:

In addition, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product and could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of the product.

Delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to establish strategic collaborations.

Delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials could significantly impact our drug development costs. We do not know whether anticipated clinical trials will begin on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. The commencement of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, delays related to:

In addition, once a clinical trial has begun, it may be suspended or terminated by us, our collaborators, the institutional review boards or data safety monitoring boards charged with overseeing our clinical trials, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities due to a number of factors, including:

If we experience delays in the completion or termination of any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenues from any of our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs and slow down our product candidate development and approval process. Delays in completing our clinical trials could also allow our competitors to obtain marketing approval before we do or shorten the patent protection period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment, a

significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact our ability to recruit and enroll patients for our clinical trials because they may be reluctant or unable to visit clinical sites, or may delay seeking treatment for chronic conditions.

If we fail to enroll and maintain the number of patients for which the clinical trial was designed, the statistical power of that clinical trial may be reduced, which would make it harder to demonstrate that the product candidate being tested in such clinical trial is safe and effective. Additionally, enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause our value to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

We intend to rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed.

We intend to rely upon third-party CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and anticipated clinical programs. Nevertheless, we maintain responsibility for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies are, and anticipated clinical studies will be, conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve the Companyus of our regulatory responsibilities. The CompanyWe and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with current requirements on cGMP, good clinical practices (“GCP”) and GLP, which are a collection of laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of preclinical study and clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, preclinical study and clinical trial sites, and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fails to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced consistent with cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require it to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the development and regulatory approval processes.

We may also not be able to enter into arrangements with CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, our CROs will not be our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we will not be able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates could be materially and adversely affected, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work replacing a previous CRO. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation under the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities, which can be costly and time consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the required approvals to commercialize our product candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other U.S. regulatory agencies, the EMA or comparable authorities in foreign markets. In the U.S., neither us nor our collaborators are permitted to market our product candidates until we or our collaborators receive approval of an NDA from the FDA or receive similar approvals abroad. The process of obtaining these approvals is expensive, often takes many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Approval policies or regulations may change and may be influenced by the results of other similar or competitive products, making it more difficult for us to achieve such approval in a timely manner or at all. Any guidance that may result from recent FDA advisory panel discussions may make it more expensive to develop and commercialize such product candidates. In addition, as a company, we have not previously filed NDAs with the FDA or filed similar applications with other foreign regulatory agencies. This lack of experience may impede our ability to obtain FDA or other foreign regulatory agency approval in a timely manner, if at all, for our product candidates for which development and commercialization is our responsibility.

Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our drug products is promising, data are susceptible to varying interpretations, and such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or any other U.S. or comparable foreign regulatory approval. Nonclinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways.

Despite the time and expense invested, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

Our inability to obtain these approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Moreover, the commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed by many factors that are beyond our control, including:

We may rely on CROs and other third parties to conduct clinical trials and, in such cases, we are unable to directly control the timing, conduct and expense of our clinical trials.

We may rely, in full or in part, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. In such situations, we have less control over the conduct of our clinical trials, the timing and completion of the trials, the required reporting of adverse events and the management of data developed through the trial than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to errors as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may have staffing difficulties, may undergo changes in priorities or may become financially distressed, adversely affecting their willingness or ability to conduct our trials. We may experience unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. Problems with the timeliness or quality of the work of a CRO may lead us to seek to terminate the relationship and use an alternative service provider. However, making this change may be costly and may delay our trials, and contractual restrictions may make such a change difficult or impossible. Additionally, it may be challenging or impossible to find a replacement organization that can conduct our trials in an acceptable manner and at an acceptable cost.

The FDA, the NIH and the EMA have demonstrated caution in their regulation of gene therapy treatments, and ethical and legal concerns about gene therapy and genetic testing may result in additional regulations or restrictions on the development and commercialization of our product candidates, which may be difficult to predict.

The FDA, National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and the EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as U.S. congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

Regulatory requirements in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Within the broader genetic medicine field, few therapeutic products have received marketing authorization from the FDA. The FDA established thereviews gene therapies and certain related products through its Office of Cellular, TissueTissues and GeneAdvanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise this review. PriorIn addition to submitting an IND, our humanFDA oversight and oversight by IRBs, under guidelines promulgated by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, gene therapy clinical trials will beare also subject to review and oversight by an Institutional Biosafety Committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH Officeguidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of Biotechnology Activities (“OBA”) Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (the “RAC”). Following an initial review, RAC members make a recommendation asrecombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions

not otherwise subject to whether the protocol raises important scientific, safety, medical, ethical or social issues that warrant in-depth discussion at the RAC’s quarterly meetings.NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Even though the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed under an IND, the RAC’s recommendations are shared with the FDA and the RAC public review process, if undertaken, can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and has not objected toapproved its initiation, the review process and determinations of the IBC or has notifiedother reviewing bodies can impede or delay the sponsor that the study may begin. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND oninitiation of a clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review or has recommended against an in-depth, public review. Moreover, under guidelines published by the NIH, patient enrollment in our future gene silencing clinical trials cannot begin until the investigator for such clinical trial has received a letter from the OBA indicating that the RAC review process has been completed; and Institutional Biosafety Committee (“IBC”) approval as well as all other applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained. In addition to the government regulators, the IBC and IRB of each institution at which we will conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or a central IRB if appropriate, would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial.

In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirementsinformation or data required for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, the EMA governs the development of gene therapies in the European Union and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, 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. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and committees and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our or our collaborators’ ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval in the U.S., it may never receive approval or commercialize our products outside of the U.S.

In order to market any products outside of the U.S., we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process in other countries may include all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the U.S. as well as other risks. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain regulatory approval in other countries or any delay seeking or obtaining such approval would impair our ability to develop foreign markets for our product candidates.

Even if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, our product candidates may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of the product candidates or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and trials. In addition, regulatory agencies subject a product, our manufacturer and the manufacturer’s facilities to continual review and periodic inspections. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, our collaborators or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. Our product candidates will also be subject to ongoing FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities’ requirements for the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information on the drug. If our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

The FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our products for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, if the physicians personally believe in their professional medical judgment that our products could be used in such manner. However, if we are found to have promoted our product candidates, if approved, for any off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement, or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We and our potential contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. The manufacturing facilities on which we will rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our potential contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stagePhase 2 or 3 clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our potential contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA or marketing authorization application (“MAA”) on a timely basis and must adhere to GLP and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities through their facilities inspection program. Some of our potential contract manufacturers may not have produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore may not have obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our potential third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we plan to oversee the contract manufacturers, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.requirements and to be able to manufacture our product according to specification. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the product candidates may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our potential third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we may contract could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we or any of our potential third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, refusal to approve

a pending application for a product candidate, withdrawal of an approval, or suspension of production.production, seizures or recalls of products, or criminal prosecution. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

Additionally, if supply from one manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through an NDA supplement or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies or trials if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost of commercializing our product candidates and may affect the prices we may obtain if our product candidates are approved for commercialization.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of adopted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-marketing activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any of our product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could limit the coverage and reimbursement rate that we receive for any of our approved product candidates. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively the “ACA”), was enacted. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA increased manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate amount for both branded and generic drugs and revised the definition of “average manufacturer price” (“AMP”), which may also increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also expanded Medicaid drug rebates and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the rebates due on those drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, also has proposed to expand Medicaid rebates to the utilization that occurs in the territories of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Further, beginning in 2011, the ACA imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced at both the state and federal level to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products.

There have been recent public announcements by members of the U.S. Congress, President Trump and his administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the ACA and Medicare. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which, among other things, eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing approval testing and other requirements.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the U.S. of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At both the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Further, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint,” or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. While some proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are 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.

One significant example of recent legislative action is the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”), which has been considered a scaled-back version of the Build Back Better Act. The IRA was signed into law on August 16, 2022. While the IRA is still subject to rulemaking (with more information to come via guidance documents from the responsible federal agencies), the IRA, as written, will, among other changes, give HHS the ability and authority to directly negotiate with manufacturers the price that Medicare will pay for certain high-priced drugs. The IRA will also require manufacturers of certain Part B and Part D drugs to issue to HHS rebates based on certain calculations and triggers (i.e., when drug prices increase and outpace the rate of inflation). At this time, we cannot predict the implications the IRA provisions will have on our business.

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

In Europe,June 2016, the United Kingdom has indicated its intent(“UK”) held a referendum pursuant to withdraw fromwhich voters elected to leave the European Union (“EU”), commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and began a transition period that ended on December 31, 2020. Although the long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements the UK makes to retain access to the EU markets, Brexit has created additional uncertainties that may ultimately result in the future. A significant portion of thenew regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is derived from the regulations of the European Union.costs and challenges for biotechnology companies. We cannot predict what consequences the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, if it occurs, might have on the regulatory frameworks of the United Kingdom or the European Union, or on our future operations, if any, in these jurisdictions.

Environmental, social and governance matters may impact our business and reputation.

Increasingly, in addition to the importance of their financial performance, companies are being judged by their performance on a variety of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) matters, which are considered to contribute to the long-term sustainability of companies’ performance.

A variety of organizations measure the performance of companies on such ESG topics, and the results of these assessments are widely publicized. In addition, investment in funds that specialize in companies that perform well in such assessments are increasingly popular, and major institutional investors have publicly emphasized the importance of such ESG measures to their investment decisions. Topics taken into account in such assessments include, among others, the company’s efforts and impacts on climate change and human rights, ethics and compliance with law, and the role of the company’s board of directors in supervising various sustainability issues. In addition to the topics typically considered in such assessments, in the healthcare industry, issues of the public’s ability to access our medicines are of particular importance.

In light of investors’ increased focus on ESG matters, there can be no certainty that we will manage such issues successfully, or that we will successfully meet society’s expectations as to our proper role. Any failure or perceived failure by us in this regard could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and on our business, share price, financial condition, or results of operations, including the sustainability of our business over time.

Changes in government funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, properly administer drug innovation, or prevent our product candidates from being developed or commercialized, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel, and statutory, regulatory, policy changes, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent yearspandemic conditions, such as a result.COVID-19. In addition, government funding of other agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. This new legislation is designed to advance medical innovation and empower the FDA with the authority to directly hire positions related to drug and device development and review. However, government proposals to reduce or eliminate budgetary deficits may include reduced allocations to the FDA and other related government agencies. These budgetary pressures may result in a reduced ability by the FDA to perform their respective roles;

including the related impact to academic institutions and research laboratories whose funding is fully or partially dependent on both the level and timing of funding from government sources.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for our product candidates to be reviewed or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to “fraud and abuse” and similar laws and regulations, and a failure to comply with such regulations or prevail in any litigation related to noncompliance could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the U.S., weWe are subject to various federal and state healthcare “fraud and abuse” laws, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and other laws intended, among other things, to reduce fraud and abuse in federal and state healthcare programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Although we seek to structure our business arrangements in compliance with all applicable requirements and safe harbors, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that our practices may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented for payment to the government, including the federal healthcare programs, claims for reimbursed drugs or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services that were not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. In addition, private individuals (whistleblowers)have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act (i.e., qui tam actions) as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,federal criminal statute on false statements (related to health care matters), we are prohibited from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up 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 to obtain money or property of any healthcare benefit program. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payors. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. 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.

Other related federal and state laws and regulations that may impact our operations include, without limitation, the federal False Statements Statue, the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and state and local disclosure requirements and marketing restrictions.

NeitherViolations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. Government.

While the government nor the courts have provided definitive guidancehas issued certain material on the application of fraud and abuse laws to our business.business, the guidance is generally limited and not always directly applicable. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing these laws, issuing new mandates and goals, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements and arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If we, or any agents acting on our behalf, are found in violation of one of these laws, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from governmental funded federal or state healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If this occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

In addition, the stock market, and equity values of small pharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors, including supply chain disruptions and inflationary impacts, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Further, a decline in the financial markets and related factors beyond our control may cause our stock price to decline rapidly and unexpectedly.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against those companies. Such litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention and resources, which could significantly harm our profitability and reputation.

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements, our management and the audit committee of our board of directors determined that our accounting treatment and valuations pertaining to the PATrOL™ technology license should be modified. This change in accounting treatment resulted in an increase in total operating expenses of approximately $0.9 million on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and a decrease in intangible assets of approximately $1.5 million on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. In connection with the valuation adjustments to the PATrOL™ technology license, we also determined that valuations pertaining to certain share-based awards should also be adjusted. This change in valuation to share-based awards resulted in a decrease in total operating expenses of approximately $0.3 million on our Consolidated Statements of Operations. If we are required to restate any of our financial statements in the future due to our inability to adequately remedy the issues that gave rise to these modifications or for any other reason, we may be subject to regulatory penalties and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause our share price to decline.

Our common stock is subject to trading risks created by the influence of third party investor websites.

Our common stock is widely traded and held by retail investors, and these investors are subject to the influence of information provided by third party investor websites and independent authors distributing information on the internet. This information has become influential because it is widely distributed and links to it appear as top company headlines on commonly used stock quote and finance websites, or through services such as Google alerts. These emerging information distribution models are a consequence of the emergence of the internet. Some information and content distribution is by individuals through platforms that mainly serve as hosts

seeking advertising revenue. As such, we believe an incentive exists for these sites to increase advertising revenue by increasing page views, and for them to post or allow to be posted inflammatory information to achieve this end. It has been our experience that a significant portion of the information on these websites or distributed by independent authors about our company is false or misleading, and occasionally, we believe, purposefully misleading. These sites and internet distribution strategies also create opportunity for individuals to pursue both “pump and dump” and “short and distort” strategies. We believe that many of these websites have little or no requirements for authors to have professional qualifications. While these sites sometimes require disclosure of stock positions by authors, as far as we are aware these sites do not audit the accuracy of such conflict of interest disclosures. We believe that many of these websites have few or lax editorial standards, and thin or non-existent editorial staffs. Despite our best efforts, we have not and may not be able in the future to obtain corrections to information provided on these websites about our company, including both positive and negative information, and any corrections that are obtained may not be achieved prior to the majority of audience impressions being formed for a given article. These conditions create volatility and risk for holders of our common stock and should be considered by investors. We can make no guarantees that regulatory authorities will take action on these types of activities, and we cannot guarantee that legislators will act responsively, or ever act at all, to appropriately restrict the activities of these websites and authors.

Our management owns a significant percentage of our stock and is able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Dr. Stephan, our President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of us, holds a significant number of shares of our outstanding common stock and an option to purchase additional shares of common stock. Accordingly, Dr. Stephan has the ability to influence us through his ownership position.

This significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price for our common stock because investors often perceive disadvantages in owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders. As a result, Dr. Stephan could significantly influence all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. Dr. Stephan may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. The interests of these stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. This may also prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interests as one of our stockholders, and he may act in a manner that advances his best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for his common stock, and might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

Our internal control over financial reporting may not meet the standards required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and failure to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, could haveWe previously identified a material adverse effect on our business and share price.

Our management is required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assessweakness in our internal control over financial reporting, are complexwhich has been remediated. If we identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect our business and require significant documentation, testingstock price.

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected in a timely basis.

We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and possible remediation. We expect that compliance with these rules and regulationsactions we may take in the future, will continuebe sufficient to substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly, and our management and other personnel will devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance requirements.

prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. In connection with the implementation of the necessary procedures and practices related to internal control over financial reporting, we may identify material weaknesses that we may not be able to remediate in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for compliance with the requirements of Section 404. In addition, we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any improvements and receiving a favorable attestation in connection with the attestation provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, if and when required. Failure

If we are unable to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and could limit our ability to report our financial results accurately and in a timely manner.

In connection with an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, our chief executive officer (“CEO”) and chief financial officer (“CFO”) concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of September 30, 2019 due to a material weakness in ouror internal control over financial reporting, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected; our liquidity, our access to capital markets and our ability to complete acquisitions may be adversely affected; we may be unable to maintain or regain compliance with applicable securities laws, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) listing requirements, and the covenants under certain agreements regarding the timely filing of periodic reports; we may be subject to regulatory investigations and penalties; investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting; and our stock price may decline.

If we identify errors in our financial reporting in the future that require us to restate previously issued financial statements, such restatements may subject us to unanticipated costs or regulatory penalties and could cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

In the past we have had to restate previously issued financial statements. If we have to do so again, we may be subject to unanticipated costs and regulatory penalties and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause our share price to decline, due to such restatement and if we are required to restate any of our other financial statements in the future.

Although we are currently eligible to file new short form registration statements on Form S-3, we cannot guarantee we will remain eligible to do so. If we were to lose such eligibility, it may impair our ability to raise capital on terms favorable to us, in a lacktimely manner or at all.

Form S-3 permits eligible issuers to conduct registered offerings using a short form registration statement that allows the issuer to incorporate by reference its past and future filings and reports made under the Exchange Act. In addition, Form S-3 enables eligible issuers to conduct primary offerings “off the shelf” under Rule 415 of expertisethe Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The shelf registration process, combined with the ability to forward incorporate information, allows issuers to avoid delays and interruptions in complex accounting transactions. Whilethe offering process and to access the capital markets in a more expeditious and efficient manner than raising capital in a standard registered offering pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1. The ability to newly register securities for resale may also be limited as a result of the loss of Form S-3 eligibility with respect to such registrations.

SEC regulations limit the amount of funds we may raise during any 12-month period pursuant to our CEOshelf registration statement on Form S-3

Our public float was less than $75 million as of the date of filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As a result, under General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3, the amount of funds we can raise through primary public offerings of securities, in any 12-month period using our registration statement on Form S-3 is limited to one-third of the aggregate market value of the shares of our common stock held by our non-affiliates. We are subject to this limitation until such time as our public float exceeds $75 million. If we are required to file a new registration statement on another form, we may incur additional costs and CFO believe that this material weakness has likely been remedied because we hired a financial accounting consultantbe subject to provide certain accounting advisory services, there can be no assurance that these steps will be sufficientdelays due to remediate our material weakness or prevent future material weaknesses from occurring.review by the SEC.

We may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure requirements applicable to a “smaller reporting company” under Regulation S-K, and the information that we provide to stockholders may be different than they might receive from other public companies.

We are a “smaller reporting company,” as defined under Regulation S-K. As a smaller reporting company, we may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include, among other things, scaled disclosure requirements, including about our executive compensation arrangements.

We intend to continue to take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosure requirements of smaller reporting companies. We may continue to take advantage of these allowances until we are no longer a smaller reporting company. We will cease to be a smaller reporting company if we have (i) more than $250 million in market value of our shares held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of our second fiscal quarter or (ii) more than $100 million of annual revenues in our most recent fiscal year completed before the last business day of our second fiscal quarter and a market value of our shares held by non-affiliates more than $700 million as of the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these scaled disclosure requirements. Therefore, the information that we provide stockholders may be different than one might get from other public companies. Further, if some investors find our shares of common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our shares of common stock and the market price of such shares of common stock may be more volatile.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research, about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In addition, if our operating results fail to meet the forecast of

analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market by our stockholders, future issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase our common stock, could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders other than actions arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for:

These exclusive-forum provisions do not apply to claims under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or any other claims for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. If a court were to find either exclusive forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, it may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business.

We are subject to securities class action litigation and derivative shareholder litigation. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on us.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the Court. Briefing on the appeal is currently scheduled for the first half of 2020. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Adele J. Barke, derivatively on behalf of Ohr, commenced an action against certain former directors of Ohr, including Michael Ferguson, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, June Almenoff and Jason S. Slakter in the Supreme Court, State of New York, alleging that the action was brought in the right and for the benefit of Ohr seeking to remedy their “breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment that occurred between June 24, 2014 and the present.” It does not quantify any alleged damages. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Such litigation has been stayed pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, which has been so ordered by the court, pending a decision in the Southern District case on the motion to dismiss, but that status could change. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp., captionedWheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the “Wheby Action”). The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the SEC on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action. Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of the Company more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may significantly reduce the value of shares of our common stock to a potential acquirer or delay or prevent an acquisition or a change in management without the consent of our board of directors. The provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include the following:

Although we believe these provisions collectively will provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove then current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of the board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of management.

Certain provisions of the DGCL deter hostile takeovers. Specifically, Section 203 of the DGCL prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years following the date the person first became an interested stockholder, unless (with certain exceptions) the business combination or the transaction by which the person became an interested stockholder is approved in a prescribed manner. Generally, a “business combination” includes a merger, asset or stock sale, or certain other transactions resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder. Generally, an “interested stockholder” is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, beneficially owns or within three years prior to becoming an “interested stockholder” did own, 15% or more of a corporation’s outstanding voting stock. While this statute permits a corporation to opt out of these protective provisions in its certificate of incorporation, our certificate of incorporation does not include any such opt-out provision.

Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of money available to us.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.

In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

ThisOur indemnification policyobligations could result in substantial expenditures by us, which we will be unable to recover.

Our pre-Merger net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes will likely be subject to limitations. The pre-Merger net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes of us may also be subject to limitations as a result of ownership changes resulting from the Merger.

In general, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses (“NOLs”) to offset future taxable income (the “Section 382 Limitation”). Such an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain stockholders, generally stockholders beneficially owning five percent or more of a corporation’s common stock, applying certain look-through and aggregation rules, increases by more than 50 percentage points over such stockholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the testing period, generally three years. Due to the ownership change of the Company upon completion of the Merger, our NOLs and certain other tax attributes will be subject to the Section 382 Limitation. Consequently, even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs and certain other tax attributes because of the Section 382 Limitation, which could have a material adverse effect on cash flow and results of operations. As of September 30, 2019,2022, we estimated that we had approximately $6.4$77.1 million in NOL carryforwards. The company hasWe have not completed an analysis regarding the limitation of net operating loss carryforwards,carryforwards; however, it is likely that the Section 382 Limitation will cause a significant portion of our NOL carryforwards to never be utilized. In addition, if we are determined to have discontinued our historic business following the completion of the Merger, subject to certain exceptions, the Section 382 Limitation could eliminate all possibility of utilizing our NOL carryforwards.

We may never pay dividends on our common stock so any returns would be limited to the appreciation of our stock.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate we will declare or pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Our failure to meet the continued listing standards on The Nasdaq Capital Market could result in a delisting of our common stock, which could negatively impact the price of our common stock, liquidity and our ability to access the capital markets.

The listing standards of The Nasdaq Capital Market provide that a company, in order to qualify for continued listing, must maintain a minimum stock price of $1.00 and satisfy standards relative to minimum stockholders’ equity, minimum market value of publicly held shares and various additional requirements. If we fail to comply with all listing standards applicable to issuers listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted.

As previously disclosed on October 3, 2022, on September 29, 2022 we received a letter (the “Notice”) from Nasdaq, notifying us that, because the closing bid price for the Company’s common stock has been below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days, the Company no longer complies with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share (the “Minimum Bid Price Requirement”), and Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) provides that a failure to meet the Minimum Bid Price Requirement exists if the deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days.

The Notice has no immediate effect on the listing of the Company’s common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company has been provided an initial compliance period of 180 calendar days, or until March 28, 2023, to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. During the compliance period, the Company’s shares of common stock will continue to be listed and traded on The Nasdaq Capital Market. To regain compliance, the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock must meet or exceed $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days during the 180 calendar day grace period.

In the event the Company is not in compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement by March 28, 2023, the Company may be afforded a second 180 calendar day grace period. To qualify, the Company would be required to meet the continued listing requirements for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for The Nasdaq Capital Market, with the exception of the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. In addition, the Company would be required to provide written notice of its intention to cure the minimum bid price deficiency during this second 180-day compliance period by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary.

We intend to actively monitor the bid price for our common stock between now and March 28, 2023 and will consider available options to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. There can be no assurance that we will be able to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement or that we will otherwise be in compliance with the other listing standards for The Nasdaq Capital Market. If our common stock is delisted, it could reduce the price of our common stock and the levels of liquidity available to our stockholders. In addition, the delisting of our common stock could materially adversely affect our access to the capital markets, and any limitation on liquidity or reduction in the price of our common stock could materially adversely affect our ability to raise capital. Delisting from The Nasdaq Capital Market could also result in other negative consequences, including the potential loss of confidence by suppliers, customers and employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

Effecting a reverse stock split, if determined by the Company’s board of directors in its discretion, may not achieve one or more of our objectives.

On September 8, 2022, the Company held its 2022 annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to which the stockholders of the Company voted in favor of an amendment to the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation to effect, at the discretion of the Company’s board of directors at any time prior to the Company’s 2023 annual meeting of stockholders, a reverse stock split of the Company’s common stock, whereby each outstanding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 shares would be combined, converted or changed into one share of the Company’s common stock. There can be no assurance that the market price per share of our common stock after a reverse stock split would remain unchanged or increase in proportion to the reduction in the number of shares of our common stock outstanding before such reverse stock split. The market price of our shares may fluctuate and potentially decline after a reverse stock split. Accordingly, the total market capitalization of our common stock after a reverse stock split may be lower than the total market capitalization before such reverse stock split. Moreover, the market price of our common stock following a reverse stock split may not exceed or remain higher than the market price prior to the reverse stock split.

Additionally, there can be no assurance that a reverse stock split would result in a per-share market price that would attract brokers and investors who do not trade in lower priced stock or that it would increase the Company’s ability to attract and retain employees and other service providers. As a result, the trading liquidity of our common stock may not necessarily improve. Further, if a reverse stock split is effected and the market price of our common stock declines, the percentage decline may be greater than would occur in the absence of a reverse stock split.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We currently subleaseIn October 2020, we entered into a ten-year operating lease agreement with annual escalating rental payments for approximately 2,20014,189 square feet of office and wet lablaboratory space at our headquarters in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Our wet lab space is used in our research and development program activities in Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaPA. The leased premises serves as our headquarters. The first and accommodates our anticipated workforcesecond amendments to the lease agreement were executed in December 2020 and near-term growth needs.April 2021, respectively (collectively with the lease agreement, the “Lease”). In November 2020, we prepaid rent of $0.3 million and paid a security deposit of $0.3 million for the Lease. The sublease terms are belowLease commenced on May 1, 2021, and we were obligated to begin making rental payments on such date. We continued to apply the current prevailing market rate per square foot and for aprepaid amount toward the rental payments through December 2021. We have the right to extend the term of one year,the Lease for an additional five-year term.

We continued to operate under our prior operating lease in Pittsburgh, PA until we moved into our new headquarters and laboratory space, which occurred in June 2021. Our prior office and operating space was leased under operating leases with one six month extension.original terms of less than 12 months that expired at various dates through November 2021; therefore, our previous operating leases are not recognized as right-of-use assets on the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2021. The Company also maintained a short-term rental of office space in San Diego, CA and New York, NY, which expired in November 2021. In October 2021, we commenced a one-year lease for rental office space in Boston, MA, which was renewed and extends through April 2023.

In February 2022, we entered into an eighteen-month lease agreement for private and shared laboratory facilities for general laboratory and office space in Boston, MA. We believe that our subleased facilities are generally well maintained and in good operating condition and thatpaid monthly rent payments of approximately $9,800 over the space is suitable and sufficient for our operational needs.term of the lease. The lease agreement was terminated effective October 2022.