The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Stock Market on June 30, 2022,2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter, was $149,708,988.$128,805,952.

As of February 24, 2023March 1, 2024, the registrant had 153,318,915161,948,618 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, outstanding.

Autoimmune diseases, where the immune system mistakenly attacks the body, are a family of more than 80 disorders. Autoimmune diseases are typically treated with interleukin-2,immunosuppressant medications, such as steroids. These treatments must be administered continually and carry risks, including infection, osteoporosis, and metabolic disease. Newer agents that block the complement pathway or IL-2, molecules that have been engineered toinhibit the neonatal Fc receptor, or FcRn, must also typically be selective for regulatory T cells, or Tregs. Treg-selective IL-2 molecules have been shown to transiently expand all pre-existing Tregs in preclinical and clinical studies conducted by others. We have observed in preclinical studies that the combination of ImmTOR, a Treg-selective IL-2 molecule and an antigen exhibited substantial synergistic activity in inducing and expanding antigen-specific Tregs beyond ImmTOR alone with evidence of enhanced durability of immune tolerance and the potential for ImmTOR dose sparing. This combination of ImmTOR with a Treg selective IL-2 molecule represents an evolution of the ImmTOR platform, which we call ImmTOR-IL™.administered continually. We believe this combination has the potential to bethere is a "first-in-class" antigen specific IL-2 therapysignificant unmet need for autoimmune disease.outpatient treatments, completed over a short period of time, that provide deep, durable clinical benefit.

We believe ImmTOR and ImmTOR-ILCell therapies have the potential to enable novel therapeutic modalitiesprovide this benefit, but conventional cell therapies that use DNA are associated with toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, transformation to cancer, and death. Further, conventional cell therapies typically require pre-treatment with chemotherapy, which suppresses the immune system and increases the risk of infection, anemia, and neurotoxicity. As a result, conventional DNA cell therapies typically require close monitoring in autoimmune disease as well as enhance bothan inpatient setting, increasing the efficacytotal cost of care and safety of biologicgenerally limiting their reach to only the sickest patients.

We believe our mRNA cell therapies (including gene therapies) and improve product candidates under development. In clinical trials, ImmTOR has been observed to inhibit the formation of neutralizing antibodies to adeno-associated virus (AAV) capsids, potentially enabling re-dosing of gene therapies. Additionally, based on preclinical data in AAV gene therapies, we believe that ImmTOR hashave the potential to improve efficacy and safety by increasing transgene expression, reducing hepatic inflammation and inhibiting undesired immune responsesdeliver deep, durable clinical benefit to both the AAV capsid and the transgene product that can occur with the first dose of gene therapy.

We lookare also developing Descartes-08 for waysthe treatment of other autoimmune diseases. We have received FDA allowance for our investigational new drug application, or IND, for a Phase 2 trial of Descartes-08 for the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, or SLE, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes systemic inflammation affecting multiple organ systems. We expect this Phase 2 trial to enhanceinitiate in the first half of 2024.

Descartes-15 is our ImmTOR platform. Recentnext-generation autologous anti-BCMA mRNA CAR-T. In preclinical studies, we have observed Descartes-15 to be 10-fold more potent than Descartes-08. We intend to test the safety of Descartes-15 in an open label, single-arm Phase 1 trial in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. This program has already received IND allowance from the FDA and is expected to enroll the first patient in the first half of 2024. We expect that these Phase 1 trial data generated bywill inform our scientific teams suggest that ImmTOR may have profound synergistic activity with engineered IL-2 molecules that are selectiveclinical development plan for Tregs. The IL-2 pathway influences critical aspects of both immune stimulation and immune regulation. Tregs express a high affinity form of the IL-2 receptor. Low doses of IL-2 have been shown by others to selectively activate Tregs resulting in expansion of pre-existing Tregs. Clinical trials of low dose IL-2 have generated evidence of efficacyDescartes-15 in autoimmune diseases. Other investigators have shown that IL-2 can be engineered to selectively bind to the high affinity IL-2 receptor and expand pre-existing Tregs.

Conventional DNA-engineered CAR-T cells are in clinical development for several autoimmune diseases. DNA CAR-T cells are typically administered to patients in a subtherapeutic dose, which means that the cells must proliferate to reach therapeutic numbers in the body. However, this proliferation is not controlled in magnitude or duration, varies from patient to patient, and can be unpredictable. This proliferation occurs because the CAR gene is irreversibly integrated into the T-cell’s genome, causing a dynamic process balancing immune stimulatory and immune tolerizing signals. This balance is thought to be mediatedcascade in part bywhich every daughter cell carries the ratio of antigen-specific Treg to antigen-specific effector Tsame CAR as the parent cells. The expansionresulting unconstrained proliferation frequently exceeds the toxicity threshold, leading to serious adverse events. In November 2023, the FDA announced that it is investigating the risk of antigen-specific TregsT-cell malignancies in approved DNA CAR-T cell immunotherapies.

We believe that mRNA cell therapy has the potential to better withstandbe a potent immune stimulatory signalsyet safer alternative to DNA cell therapy for treating autoimmune diseases. We believe the mRNA cell therapies we are developing have the potential to deliver deep, durable clinical benefit to many patients with autoimmune diseases because they can be administered over a short period of time, in an outpatient setting, and provide better durabilitywithout pre-treatment chemotherapy. These attributes may extend the reach and potential of immune tolerance. In a preclinical study, we evaluated the ability of ImmTOR and IL-2 mutein to mitigate the immunogenicitymRNA cell therapy to a co-administered AAV vector. Mice were injectedbroader group of patients with a doseautoimmunity.

mRNA CAR-T cells locate their target, become activated, and proliferate like DNA CAR-T cells. However, because mRNA does not replicate and degrades naturally over time, the maximum number of 2.7E12 vg/kg AAV8 on Day 0mRNA molecules can be determined by the dose. The actual number of mRNA molecules declines to zero over time. The number of mRNA molecules determines the degree of CAR protein expression, and 5.0E12 vg/kg on Day 56 with or without IL-2 mutein and/or ImmTOR on the same days. Mice treated with AAV alone showed a robust antibody response to the AAV capsid, as we had expected. Co-treatment with IL-2 mutein on Days 0 and 56 showed a modest attenuationpersistence of the antibody response. Co-treatmentmRNA molecules determines the duration of mRNA CAR-T cell activity. Thus, unlike DNA CAR-T cells, our mRNA CAR-T cells provide pharmacokinetic control. In other words, a patient’s exposure to our cells is determined by the dose. The time, course and duration of that exposure are substantially determined by the nature of the mRNA we use. Therefore, while DNA CAR-T therapies are administered at subtherapeutic levels, we can administer a therapeutic number of mRNA CAR-T cells and re-dose these cells over time, much like a conventional drug. Because the mRNA cannot be replicated, we believe, and have thus far observed, that mRNA CAR-T cells do not cause the types of severe toxicity associated with ImmTOR on Days 0 and 56 showed a dose-responsive effect on the antibody response, withDNA CAR-T cells. Also, because mRNA CAR-T is dosed at a therapeutic dose and does not rely on cell proliferation to reach the therapeutic window, there is no need to administer pre-treatment chemotherapy. The graphs below contrast our mRNA cell therapy approach with that of 200 µg ImmTOR providing inhibition of antibodies against AAV through at least Day 75, or 19 days after the second dose. At Day 91, some animals showed breakthroughconventional DNA cell therapy.

As of the antibody response. ImmTOR doses2023 safety cutoff date, we have administered Descartes-08 to over 60 patients suffering from one of 50MG, multiple myeloma, and 100 µg alone were sub-optimal. However, when ImmTOR was combined with IL-2 mutein, weother diseases in open-label trials on an outpatient basis, many at community clinics. We have not observed inhibitionproduct-related cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity or infection of antibody formation through Day 117, 61 days after the second dose and the last time point measured. Importantly full inhibition of anti-AAV immunoglobulin G, or IgG, antibodies was observed even when IL-2 mutein was combined with 50 and 100 µg doses of ImmTOR. We believe these results suggest that the addition of a Treg-selective IL-2 to ImmTOR has the potential to increase the durability of tolerance allow for dose-sparing of ImmTOR and thus, potentially enabling chronic dosing of ImmTOR-IL in the treatment of autoimmune disease.any grade. The following graphs illustrate that the combination of ImmTOR and IL-2 mutein mitigated the formation of anti-AAV antibodies in response to a high vector dose of 5E13 vg/kg. These results suggest that ImmTOR-IL has the potential to enable repeat dosing of AAV vectors at 5E13 vg/kg which could be used as a strategy to avoid the toxicities that have been observed at doses of 1E14 vg/kg or higher in some clinical trials.

Our ImmTOR platform haslead product candidate is Descartes-08, a broad range of potential applications. Our product development strategy is builtfirst-in-class mRNA CAR-T. Descartes-08 targets BCMA, which exists on the following three distinct pillars.

Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the specific enzyme, are especially prone to causing undesired immune responses. Our partnered product candidate, SEL-212, which is currently in Phase 3 clinical development, consists of ImmTOR co-administered with pegadricase, a pegylated uricase enzyme of fungal origin. This is an example of an immunogenic enzyme that we are combining with ImmTOR with the intention of improving the enzyme’s efficacy and safety. We believe that ImmTOR has the potential to enable and expand the use of enzymes derived from microbial sources, such as bacterial immunoglobulin A, or IgA, proteaseFDA for the treatment of IgA nephropathy.MG. We selectedchose MG as our lead indication because the pathogenesis for MG is common to many autoimmune diseases.

MG is a next generation IgA protease candidate from a commensal bacteriarare autoimmune disease that causes debilitating muscle weakness and fatigue. It is estimated to affect over 120,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe. MG patients develop antibodies that lead to an immunological attack on critical signaling proteins at the junction between nerve and muscle cells, thereby inhibiting the ability of nerves to communicate properly with a lower levelmuscles. This results in muscle weakness in tissues throughout the body, potentially manifesting in partial paralysis of baseline ADAs from IGAN Biosciences for the treatment of IgA nephropathy. By combining ImmTOR with this next generation IgA protease candidate, we believe our novel approach has the potential to mitigate the formation of new ADAseye movements, problems in chewing and address the underlying pathophysiologyswallowing, respiratory problems, speech difficulties and weakness in skeletal muscles. The symptoms of the disease.

There are no known cures for MG and the current standard of hepatotoxicity, which has been associated with losscare consists of transgene expression. The formationchronic use of neutralizing antibodies against AAV after initial treatment with AAV mediated gene therapies effectively preventssteroids and other immunosuppressants. These treatments must be administered continually and carry risks such as infection, osteoporosis, and metabolic diseases. Newer agents, such as those that block the possibilitycomplement pathway or inhibit FcRn, are typically administered continually.

To date, we have completed the Phase 1b portion of re-dosingthe Phase 1/2 trial of Descartes-08 in patients who may benefit from additional doses due to either the failure to achieve therapeutic benefit or loss of transgene expression over time. Additionally, a significant number of patients who would benefit from treatment by gene therapies are ineligible due to pre-existing immunity to the AAV vectors from a natural infection. This pre-existing immunity could potentially be addressed through an IgG protease pre-treatment to open a dosing window for AAV gene therapies. We believe that the combination of ImmTOR and Xork could simultaneously address the two key issues facing the AAV gene therapy modality and make them more accessible while also making them safer and more durable.

dosing lower levelsfollow-up. Descartes-08 was observed to be well-tolerated with no reports of AAV gene therapies when combined with ImmTOR. Integrating ImmTOR into a gene therapy protocol has the potential to provide a first dose benefit by enhancing liver-directed transgene expression and durability, as well as the potential to enable re-dosing to restoredose-limiting toxicities, cytokine release syndrome or augment transgene expression.neurotoxicity.

Secondary endpoints are designed to assess a variety of additional clinical outcomes, including determining safety and tolerability, quantifying the SEL-399 clinical trial waseffect of Descartes-08 over one year, assessing changes through day 85 in QMG, MG QoL 15R, MG Composite and MG post-intervention status and comparing the effect of Descartes-08 versus placebo on MG scales through day 85 in patients who cross over from placebo to evaluateDescartes-08.

We are also developing Descartes-08 for the formationtreatment of antibodies to AAV capsids used in gene therapies. Top-line results indicatedSLE, a chronic autoimmune disease that AAV8 empty capsids elicited peak median anti-AA8 neutralizing antibody, or NAb, titers of 1:6875. Median day 30 NAb titers were reduced to titers of 1:25 and 1:5 in the 0.15 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg ImmTOR cohorts, respectively, representingcauses systemic inflammation which affects multiple organ systems.

SLE is a 50-fold and 250-fold difference, respectively, compared to the median of control subjects dosed with AAV8 empty capsid alone, as depicted in the figure below. Further, we observedchronic, immune-mediated connective tissue disease that at Day 30, six of six, or 100%, of subjects that received 0.3 mg/kg exhibited NAb titers of 1:25 or less, and four of six, or 67%, of those subjects at this dose exhibited NAb titers of 1:5 or less. We observed at Day 30 that six of nine, or 67%, of subjects that received 0.15 mg/kg of ImmTOR exhibited NAb titers of 1:25 or less, and two of nine, or 22%, of subjects at this dose had a titer of 1:5 or less. At Day 90, two of six subjects in the 0.3 mg/kg cohort were observed to have sustained control of neutralizing antibodies with titers of 1:25 or less. Consistent with preclinical data, we observed that the single dose ImmTOR cohorts showed delayed formation of neutralizing antibodies which eventually reached similar median levels of neutralizing antibodies to the control group by Day 90. Similar data were observed in NHP receiving a single dose of ImmTOR with an AAV gene therapy vector in a preclinical study. Importantly, we observed that two additional doses of ImmTOR, or a total of three monthly doses, provided durable inhibition of neutralizing antibodies in NHP. Although we could not evaluate three-monthly doses of ImmTOR in healthy volunteers, we intend to employ a three-monthly dose regimen in clinical trials performed in patients. ImmTOR showed safety results consistent with prior human studies and was generally well tolerated. No serious adverse events were reported.can impact nearly all major organ systems. The most common treatment-related adverse events included mild-to-moderate stomatitismanifestations of SLE are cutaneous and rash. We believe this promising trial in healthy volunteers provides support for the potential usemusculoskeletal symptoms, although neurological, gastrointestinal, hematological, and renal symptoms are regularly observed as well. Patients with SLE are at a substantially increased risk of ImmTOR for the inhibition of neutralizing antibodies to AAV8 in gene therapy clinical trials. The following graphs depict the effect of ImmTOR on the formation of neutralizing antibodies to AAV8 capsid in humans and NHP.

Descartes-15 is a result of prior infection with wildtype AAV, are a major exclusion factor in clinical trials causing many potential patientsnext-generation, autologous anti-BCMA mRNA CAR-T. Using our proprietary technology and manufacturing platform, we designed Descartes-15 to be ineligible for gene therapy.more resistant than Descartes-08 to recycling of the CAR upon multiple antigen exposures. We have licensedbelieve this is a bacterial IgG protease, or Xork, from Genovis AB (publ.), or Genovis. IgG proteases have been shown by othersparticularly important feature to transiently cleave IgG and enable dosingincrease the durability of AAV vectorsCAR expression on the surface of these cells. We observed that Descartes-15 was 10-fold more potent than Descartes-08 in preclinical studies, as illustrated in the presence of pre-existing antibodies in NHP. However, IgG proteases, being of bacterial origin, are themselves immunogenic. The most commonly studied IgG protease, called IdeS or imlifidase, is derived from Streptococcus pyogenes, a common human pathogen. Most healthy individuals have been exposed to S. pyogenes and have pre-existing antibodies against IdeS. We believe that Xork is a differentiated product candidate, as it is derived from a Streptoccocal species that does not infect humans and so the enzyme shows very low cross reactivity to naturally existing antibodies in most human serum. We plan to develop Xork with the intention of enabling access to AAV gene therapy for those patients who are currently excluded due to pre-existing anti-AAV antibodies.below charts. In JanuaryNovember 2023, we announced an exclusive licensingreceived IND allowance from the FDA to initiate the Phase 1 trial to test the safety of Descartes-15 in patients with multiple myeloma.

We intend to leverage our preclinical and clinical observations from the Descartes-08 development agreementprogram and the Descartes-15 Phase 1 program to inform our clinical strategy for Xork to be developedDescartes-15 for use with AT845, Astellas Gene Therapies' investigational AAV-basedthe treatment of autoimmune diseases.

Recent preclinical data generated by our scientific team suggest that ImmTOR mayWe have profound synergistic activity with engineered IL-2 molecules that are selective for Tregs. The IL-2 pathway influences critical aspects of both immune stimulationestablished wholly owned internal manufacturing and immune regulation. Tregs express a high affinity form of the IL-2 receptor. Low doses of IL-2 have been shown by others to selectively activate Tregs resulting in expansion of pre-existing Tregs.

Effective September 16, 2019, we entered into a nonexclusive, worldwide license agreement, or the NCI Agreement, with polyethylene glycol moieties. Uricase is an enzyme endogenous to all mammals, except for humansthe U.S. Department of Health and certain primates, which converts serum urate to the more soluble metabolite, allantoin. There is a natural limit to the amount of serum urate that can be excretedHuman Services, represented by the kidneys, which decreases with ageNational Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, or NCI.

Under the NCI Agreement, we were granted a license under certain NCI patents and can be reduced by some medications. By converting serum uratepatent applications designated in the agreement, to allantoin, uricase provides an additional way formake, use, sell, offer and import products and processes within the body to reduce serum urate.

In connection with chronic gout, refractoryour entry into the NCI Agreement, we paid to standard serum urate lowering treatment, by breaking downNCI a one-time $100,000 license royalty payment. Under the excess serum urate, or SU,NCI Agreement, we are further required to pay NCI a low five-digit annual royalty. We must also pay earned royalties on net sales in a low single-digit percentage and pay up to $0.8 million in benchmark royalties upon our achievement of designated benchmarks that are based on the commercial development plan agreed between the parties.

Under the NCI Agreement, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to bring licensed products and licensed processes to the more soluble allantoin. However,point of Practical Application (as defined in the immune responseNCI Agreement). Upon our first commercial sale, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to pegadricase limits administrationmake licensed products and licensed processes reasonably accessible to a single dose which is effective for less than one month. The addition of ImmTOR to pegadricase (SEL-212) allows multiple monthly doses to be administered, thus reducing serum urate for a prolonged time.

Additionally, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to mitigate that immune response to both single and multiple doses. The table below summarizes the trial designs and objectives of these clinical trials.

The NCI Agreement terminates upon the expiration of the last to less than 6.0 mg/dLexpire of the patent rights licensed thereunder, if not sooner terminated. NCI has the right to terminate this agreement, after giving written notice and providing a cure period in 21accordance with its terms, if we are in default of 32 evaluable patients, or 66%. In distinct contrast, pegadricase alone reduced SU to less than 6.0 mg/dL in only three of 19 patients one month after a single injection (data from pegadricase alone cohorts from the SEL-037/101, SEL-212/101, and SEL-212/201 trials). We believe these results support our view that the addition of ImmTOR to pegadricase is able dramatically enhance the efficacy of pegadricase in the long-term reduction of SU in gout patients. The chart below depicts SU after five monthly doses of SEL-212.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of any other tolerance or immune modulationcell therapy product candidates that we develop, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may

SEL-212Descartes-08 may compete with othersproducts of other companies in the goutMG market, including pegloticase, which contains a pegylated uricase similar to the pegadricase component of SEL-212Argenx SE, UCB S.A., Johnson & Johnson, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and is indicated for the treatment of refractory gout. HorizonCabaletta Bio, Inc.

Other companies developing CAR-T therapies include large, fully integrated pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis AG, Gilead Sciences, Inc., through its Kite Pharma, plc, whose affiliates own pegloticase, may find other approaches to eliminate undesired immunogenicity to pegloticase. Long-term treatment with global immunosuppressive products may increase the susceptibility to contract infections, tumorsInc. subsidiary, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AstraZeneca PLC and may lead to organ failure.

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

SEL-212 isWe believe our cell therapy product candidates are subject to regulation in the United States as a combination product. If marketed individually, each component would be subject to different regulatory pathways and would require approval of independent marketing applications by the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to a Center that will have primary jurisdiction over its regulation based on a determination of the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. In the case of SEL-212, we believe that the primary mode of action is attributable to the biologic component of the product. In the case of SEL-212, which we believe will be regulated as a therapeutic biologic, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,“biologics” or CDER, will have primary jurisdiction over premarket development.“biological products”. We expect to seek approval of SEL-212Descartes-08 through a single BLA reviewed by CDER,FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and we do not expect that the FDA will require a separate marketing authorization for each constituent of SEL-212.Research, or CBER.

Biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. SEL-212Descartes-08 and any other product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries.

The process required by the FDA before a biologic, including a genecell therapy, may be marketed in the United States is summarized below.

Biological product candidates are preclinically tested before any testing is done in humans. These tests, or non-clinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices, or GLPs.

The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, or non-compliance.other issues. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. In addition to these requirements, biological product candidates may also require evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution.an institution participating in a clinical trial.

Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, patient selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor patient safety. Each protocol and

The FDA or the sponsor or itsa separate data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical study at any time on various grounds. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.patients or otherwise in the interest of patient welfare.

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are also required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies must also finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements.

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal trials, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain a pediatric assessment unless the applicant has obtained a waiver or deferral. Pediatric assessment contains data gathered from pediatric studies using appropriate formulations for each age group for which the assessment is required and other data adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate 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 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, requires that sponsors planning to submit a BLASponsors with an application for a biological product that in certain circumstances nnew active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, (or a deferral or waiver, as appropriate) within sixty60 days after a Type Cof an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Under the Prescription Drug Fee User Act, as amended, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. Fee waiver or reductions are available under certain circumstances, including for the first application filed by a small business. In addition, no user fees are assessed on BLAs on products designated as orphan drugs unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviewsconducts a preliminary review of a BLA to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information before deciding whether to accept a BLA for completeness.filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or otherwise not reviewable and may request additional information. OnceIf the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA substantively reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent, and manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements.appropriate procedures and controls to ensure product quality. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a non-binding recommendation on approval. The FDA may waive the review by an advisory committee and is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it often follows such recommendations. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will review proposed product labeling and will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product candidate. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately deny approval.approval or seek additional information from the applicant. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the applicant interprets the same data. The FDA may also raise questions about product manufacturing and quality control. If the FDA denies approval of a BLA in its then-current form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter detailing deficiencies in the application. If a response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

In the United States, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same product"same drug" for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer with orphan exclusivity is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the approveapproved orphan product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval

Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity.

The FDA has aoffers various programs, including the Fast Track program, Breakthrough Therapy designation, and the RMAT designation that isare intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new biologic may request that the FDA designate the biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of treatment, diagnosis, or prevention compared to marketed products. available therapies.

Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Biological products studiedThe FDA may approve a product for their safety and effectiveness in treatinga serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval, which means that they may be approveddisease or condition based on the basis of studies establishinga determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a biological product subject to accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to confirm such benefit. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, added the failure to conduct post-approval studies with due diligence or to submit timely progress reports on such studies to the list of prohibited acts under the FD&C Act, which means that any such failures, whether they result from a sponsor’s actions or the actions of third parties, could provide the basis for enforcement actions. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval ofthat promotional materials be submitted prior to use, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

In addition, under the provisions of The Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, the FDA established a Breakthrough Therapy Designation which is intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the features of Fast Track designation, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. Fast Track, priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designations do not change the standards for approval and may not necessarily expedite the development or approval process.

Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP requirements. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects and reporting updated safety and efficacy information.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling, (knownknown as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet.requirement to balance information provided about a product’s benefits with important safety information. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions, expensive and onerous government investigations, and adverse publicity.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical study or studies. However, complexities associatedThe FDA has approved a number of products under these provisions.

To the Company’s knowledge, the definition of “biosimilar” with the larger,regard to an mRNA-modified cell therapy has not been expressly stated in statute, regulation, or guidance, and often more complex, structureshas not been reviewed by a court. The regulatory pathway for a biosimilar to one of biologicalour products as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA.thus remains somewhat uncertain.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries outside the United States prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries.

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

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is composed of the 27 member states of the European Union, or EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biologicalmedical product under European UnionEU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application, which is similar to the U.S. BLA. The European UnionEU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities“new active substances” generally receive eight years of data exclusivity, which prevents regulatory authorities in the European UnionEU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application, and an additional two years of market exclusivity, during which no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’sEU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity,active substance, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation in the European UnionEU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European UnionEU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European UnionEU are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1)(i) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2)(ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European UnionEU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European UnionEU to justify investment; and (3)(iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union,EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for certain financial and exclusivity incentives.

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

When conducting clinical trials in the EU, we must adhere to the provisions of the European UnionEU Clinical Trials Directive (Directive 2001/20/EC) and the laws and regulations of the EU Member States implementing them. These provisions require, among other things, that the prior authorization of an Ethics Committee and the competent Member State authority is obtained before commencing the clinical trial. In 2014, the EU passed the Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation 536/2014), which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive, to ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the European Union.EU.

We are also subject to data privacy and security laws in the jurisdictions outside of the U.S. in which we are established, run clinical trials or in which we sell or market our products once approved. For example, in Europe we are subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR) in relation to our collection, control, processing and other use of personal data (i.e., data relating to an identifiable living individual). We process personal data in relation to participants in our clinical trials in the EEA.,EEA, including the health and medical information of these participants. The GDPR is directly applicable in each E.U.EU Member State, however, it provides that E.U.EU Member States may introduce further conditions, including limitations which could limit our ability to collect, use and share personal data (including health and medical information), or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business. The GDPR

imposes accountability and transparency obligations regarding personal data. We are also subject to E.U.EU rules with respect to cross-border transfers of personal data out of the E.U.EU and EEA. We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those E.U.EU jurisdictions where we are established or otherwise subject to the GDPR. A breach of the GDPR could result in significant fines, regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/ change our use of data, enforcement notices, as well potential civil claims including class action type litigation where individuals suffer harm. Moreover, the United Kingdom leaving the E.U.EU could also lead to further legislative and regulatory changes. It remains unclear how the United Kingdom data protection laws or regulations will develop in the medium to longer term and how data transfer to the United Kingdom from the E.U.EU will be regulated. However, the United Kingdom has transposed the GDPR into domestic law with the Data Protection Act 2018, which remains in force following the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly (regardless of knowledge of this specific statute) and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers, and other third parties on the other. The majority of states also similar have anti-kickback laws, which in some cases are more restrictive.apply to items and services reimbursed by private insurance.

The federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Manufacturers can be held liable under false claims laws, even if they do not submit claims to the government, where they are found to have caused submission of false claims by, among other things, providing incorrect coding or billing advice about their products to customers that file claims, or by engaging or off-label promotion to customers that file claims. Violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may also constitute a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Actions under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the Department of Justice or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the civil False Claims Act can result in very significant monetary penalties and treble damages, and may be accompanied by additional civil monetary penalties against individuals. Many states also have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, prohibits, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and 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. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and certain other healthcare providers. The ACA imposed, among other things, new annual reporting requirements through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act for coveredrequires applicable manufacturers forto annually report certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other health care professionals beginning in 2022, and teaching hospitals,providers, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, impose specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information held by covered entities and their business associates. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to, as well as imposed certain other privacy obligations on, “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or the FTCA, 15 U.S.C § 45(a).

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will therefore depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care plans, private health insurers and other organizations.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a pharmaceutical or biological product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted.States. This included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare

payments to several providers, including hospitals and imaging centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Recently there

The Biden administration has indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority. On October 14, 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to lower prescription drug costs for Americans. In response to this directive, the HHS Secretary announced and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is developing three new models intended to lower drug costs under Medicare and Medicaid, including establishing a new approach for administering outcomes-based agreements for cell and gene therapies. President Biden also been heightened governmental scrutiny oversigned an executive order on July 9, 2021 affirming the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designedadministration’s policy to, among other things, bring more transparencysupport legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drugs, including by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars, and support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the executive order directs the HHS Secretary to productprovide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing reviewof prescription drugs, continue to clarify and improve the relationship between pricingapproval framework for generic drugs and manufacturer patient programs,identify and reformaddress any efforts to impede generic drug competition, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the federal government program reimbursement methodologies.pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry. The executive order also directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. The FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. In response, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. On January 5, 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s drug importation proposal, the first step toward Florida facilitating importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada.

At Selecta Biosciences,Cartesian Therapeutics, we consider human capital to be an essential driver of our business and successful strategy creation and execution. Our people, driven by our Collaborative, Pioneering,collaborative, pioneering, and Patient Focusedpatient-focused culture, propel our business forward, strengthening us for long-term success.

As of December 31, 2022,2023, we had 6438 employees, 4726 of whom are primarily engaged in research and development activities and 1712 in corporate functions. 61%37 of our employees are employed by us on a full-time basis. 73.6% of our employees have at least one of a Masters, PhD, or MD degree. Our 2022 annualized voluntary turnover rate was 9.82%. All employees reside and work in the United States and our employees are not represented by a labor union. We consider our employee relations to be strong and in good standing.

Our goal is to continually engage our talented and diverse workforce to drive value creation both for our business and ultimately our patient populations. We believe in a proactive approach to talent management focusing on retention of key talent, critical role successor identification, and impactful employment development. Additional priority areas intended to drive engagement include successful recruitment of diverse talent, continual promotion of professional development at all levels, introduction, and evolution of business-friendly HRhuman resources solutions, coupled with an intentional culture dialog aimed to drive a high engagement, high performance, patient centric culture.

To further drive attraction and retention of our high-quality, experienced, and diverse workforce, we invest in the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of our employees. These investments include a competitive mix of compensation and generous insurance benefits. To assist employees with the rising cost of healthcare, we pay 100% of an employee’s deductible and co-insurance payments. All employees are eligible to participate in our equity compensation programs. All employees are awarded new hire equity and annual equity as well as the opportunity to participate in our Employee Stock Purchase Plan.equity. Employees are also eligible to receive an annual cash bonus and to participate in a 401(k) retirement plan with an industry competitive company match.

The occurrenceOur failure to successfully execute on of any of the foregoing for any reason would effectively prevent or delay approval of our lead and other product candidates. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may continue to adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, or if we are forced to delay or abandon certain clinical trials or other testing in order to conserve capital resources, we may:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated. Authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations.

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 similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In addition, from time to time our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. The safety of our patients and investigators continues to be our utmost priority. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which could cause the value of our common stock to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

Opening trial sites outside the United States may involve additional regulatory, administrative and financial burdens, including compliance with foreign and local requirements relating to regulatory submission and clinical trial practices. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs, and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. Generally, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside the United States must be representative of the population for which we intend to seek approval in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of any applicable product candidates.

Additional risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include:

There exist several designations that we can apply for from the FDA and other regulators that would provide us with various combinations of the potential for expedited regulatory review, certain financial incentives as well as the potential for post-approval exclusivity for a period of time. These designations include but are not limited to orphan drug designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval, fast track status and priority review for our product candidates. For example, we and AskBio receivedDescartes-08 has been granted orphan drug designation by the FDA for SEL-302 in November 2020.the treatment of MG. We expect to seek one or more of these designations for our other current and future product candidates. There can be no assurance that any of our other product candidates will qualify for any of these designations. There can also be no assurance that any of our product candidates that do qualify for these designations will be granted such designations or that the FDA will not revoke a designation it grants at a later date. date, or that Congress will not change the law about a designation.

Further, there can be no assurance that any of our product candidates that are granted such designations, including Descartes-08, will ever benefit from such designations or that the FDA would not withdraw such designations once granted. Were we to receive a designation that promised a period of market exclusivity, such as orphan drug exclusivity, such exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. In particular, the scope of exclusivity afforded for mRNA-modified cell therapy products may not be well defined. Further with respect to orphan drug status, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior if it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

From time to time, we may publish interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical studies, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analyses of all data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available.

Interim, top-line or preliminary data may not be representative of final data. If final data is not as positive as earlier interim, top-line or preliminary we have released, our business prospects would be significantly harmed.

In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant by you or others with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular

product candidate or our business. As a result, preliminary and top-line data should not be relied upon in making an investment decision in our securities.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities and could result in decreased market acceptance of any of our product candidates, if approved. Further, therapies such as those we are developing involve unique side effects that could be more significant than side effects

In November 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR-T cell immunotherapies. While the FDA noted that it currently believes that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action. Further, in January 2024, the clinical developmentFDA announced it would require a so-called “boxed warning” be added to the prescribing information for all six then-currently approved CAR-T therapies. A boxed warning is the strongest safety labeling the FDA may require. However, because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications.

While we believe our mRNA-based CAR-T product candidates may have a differentiated toxicity profile than currently approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies, there can be no assurance that the FDA would not treat Descartes-08 or any of SEL-212 over many years has required multiple clinical trials and resultedour other product candidates similar to approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the use of different formulations of ImmTOR. While we do not believe that such differences in formulation will affect the safety or the efficacy of SEL-212, we cannot guarantee that any such formulation changes will not negatively impact the results of any clinical trials related to SEL-212, orfuture, which may, among other things, result in a significant difference inadditional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the safety and efficacytiming for receiving any regulatory approvals or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of SEL-212.our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

TheAny drug-related side effects observed in our clinical trials could also affect patient enrollment in our clinical trials or the ability of any enrolled patients to complete such trials or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of a particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We have growing manufacturing capabilities, and in order to continue to develop our current product candidates, apply for regulatory approvals and, if approved, commercialize future products, we will need to continue to develop, contract for, or otherwise arrange for any necessary external manufacturing capabilities.

In developing manufacturing capabilities by building our own manufacturing facilities, we have incurred substantial expenditures, and expect to incur significant additional expenditures in the future. Also, we have had to, and will likely need to continue to recruit, hire, and train qualified employees to staff our facilities. If we are unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of material or if we encounter problems with our gene therapy preclinical materials. Gene therapy is a relatively new area for commercial biopharmaceutical developmentfacilities in the future, we may also need to secure alternative suppliers, and there are a limited number of CMOs with adequate facilities and expertise in this area. As a result,such alternative suppliers may not be available, or we may be unable to successfully manufactureenter into agreements with them on reasonable terms and in a timely manner. In addition, to the extent we or our gene therapy preclinical materials throughpartners rely on contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to supply our product candidates, any delays or disruptions in supply could have a third party or scale upmaterial adverse impact on the manufactureresearch and development activities and potential commercialization of our gene therapyor our partners’ product candidatescandidates.

The manufacturing process for clinical testing or commercialization, if at all.

To the extent that we may develop may compete with other products for access to manufacturing facilities. Any failure to gain access to these limited manufacturing facilities could severely impact the clinical development, marketing approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our programs, and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, do not comply with confidentiality obligations, do not meet expected deadlines, experience work stoppages, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or do not conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, or may need to be repeated. If any of the foregoing occur, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates or in commercializing our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors, including:

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization or make arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing functions and we may not be successful in doing so. We expect to rely on Sobi for the marketing and sale of SEL-212, if approved. For our other product candidates, we expect to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to market or co-promote our product candidates in the United States and potentially elsewhere, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

The development and commercialization of new drug and biologic products and technologies is highly competitive and is characterized by rapid and substantial technological development and product innovations. We are aware that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, offer or are pursuing the development of pharmaceutical products or technologies that may address one or more indications that our product candidates target, as well as smaller, early-stage companies, that offer or are pursuing the development of pharmaceutical products or technologies that may address one or more indications that our product candidates target. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement for product candidates and in marketing approved products than we do.

These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales and marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market, especially for any competitor developing a competing immunomodulating therapeuticcell therapy product that will likely share our same regulatory approval requirements. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic or biosimilar products.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a biologics license application, or BLA. The law is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA, and as a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. However, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We believe that any product candidate approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We cannot be certain if we will obtain an adequate level of reimbursement for our products by third-party payors. Even if we do obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, products. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Third-party payors often require that pharmaceutical companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for products. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new and innovative therapies, such as our product candidates, before they will provide reimbursement. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Moreover, there is heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, will not be subject to heightened governmental scrutiny, unfavorable regulatory inquiry or action, or Congressional inquiry.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We maintain general liability, product liability and umbrella liability insurance. Our existing insurance coverage may not fully cover potential liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. A product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our share price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the commercialization of any product candidates we develop.

Arrangements with physicians, others who may be in a position to generate business for us, and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom may recommend, purchase and/or prescribe our product candidates, if approved, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations.

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

For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or the ACA, is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on us.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. 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 products.

The ability of the FDA to review and or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations administered by the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations including those administered or enforced by relevant government authorities, such as by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control or the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, or the FCPA, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USAUniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, or PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. U.S. sanctions laws and regulations may govern or restrict our business and activities in certain countries and with certain persons. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties for clinical trials outside of the United States, to sell our product candidates abroad once we enter a commercialization phase, and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors and other partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Our violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences.

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

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

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval and securing reimbursement for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, and establishing and managing our collaborations at various stages of a product candidate’s development. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical and biological product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase and product revenue could be further delayed.

We may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue to develop our gene therapy pipeline, including our collaboration with AskBio, research and develop our autoimmune programs and advance the evolution of our ImmTOR platform in combination with IL-2, and continue research and development for other product candidates. Additionally, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we

expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding to continue operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our clinical trials, our other research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Market volatility resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic,ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the ongoing conflict in UkraineMiddle East and current global macroeconomic conditions or other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the

rights of our stockholders, and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness could 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, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights 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 others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or 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.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs, including our clinical trial programs, or the commercialization of any product candidates, or be unable to sustain or expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, for federal and state income tax purposes that may be available to offset our future taxable income, if any. In general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to use its pre-change NOLs to offset future taxable income. If the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, challenges our analysis that existing NOLs will not expire before utilization due to previous ownership changes, or if we undergo an ownership change, in connection with or after a public offering, our ability to use our NOLs could be limited by Section 382 of the Code. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code.

Furthermore, our ability to use NOLs of companies that we may acquire in the future may be subject to limitations. As a result, we may not be able to use a material portion of the NOLs reflected on our balance sheet, even if we attain profitability. The reduction of the corporate tax rate under the TCJA may cause a reduction in the economic benefit of our NOLs and other deferred tax assets available to us. Under current law, NOLs that arose before January 1, 2018 will beginmay be carried forward up to expire in 2041.20 years. NOLs that arose after 2017 may be used to offset at most 80% of our taxable income to the extent not offset by pre-2018 NOLs.NOLs and such NOLs can be carried forward indefinitely. As a result, we may become required to pay federal income taxes in future years despite having generated losses for federal income tax purposes in prior years.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

The patent prosecution 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, in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. As we reach the statutory deadlines for deciding whether and where to initiate prosecution in specific foreign jurisdictions by filing national stage applications based on our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, we will have to decide whether and where to pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in our patent portfolio, and we will only have the opportunity to obtain patents in those jurisdictions where we pursue protection. 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. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as, with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. We also cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete and thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents covering technology that we license from third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Moreover, we have obligations under our licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We cannot provide any assurances that the issued patents we currently own, or any future patents, include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage.

Further, it is possible that a patent claim may provide coverage for some but not all parts of a product candidate or third-party product. These and other factors may provide opportunities for our competitors to design around our patents.

Moreover, other parties may have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications, and may have received or may receive patents that may overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming similar methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, it may be some time before we understand how the patent office reacts to our patent claims and whether they identify prior art of relevance that we have not already considered.

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 know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we may license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. For these and other reasons, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are subject to a level of uncertainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or other patent office, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference proceeding can result in a third party receiving the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market or otherwise commercialize our product candidates. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents are subject to a level of uncertainty.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. Due to legal standards relating to patentability, validity, enforceability and claim scope of patents covering biotechnological and pharmaceutical inventions, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Even if issued, a patent’s validity, inventorship, ownership or enforceability is not conclusive. Accordingly, rights under any existing patent or any patents we might obtain or license may not cover our product candidates, or may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates to afford a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes, including those from branded and generic pharmaceutical companies.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by our patents. Although our agreements require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any other third parties who have access to our trade secrets, proprietary know-how and other confidential information and technology to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other confidential information and technology will not be subject to unauthorized disclosure or that our competitors will not otherwise gain access to or independently develop substantially equivalent trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other information and technology. 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 globally. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized disclosure of our intellectual property related to our product candidates and technology to third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also seek to enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to, or independently developed by, a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, recent patent reform legislation could further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, included provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation, including first-to-file provisions. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Thus, for our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, the date such provisions became effective, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. Moreover, some of the patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the pre-Leahy-Smith Act law and regulations, while other patents applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the law and regulations, as amended by the Leahy-Smith Act. This introduces additional complexities into the prosecution and management of our portfolio.

In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act limits where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provides opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. These provisions apply to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a federal court action.

Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims because it may be easier for them to do so relative to challenging the patent in a federal court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the

uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In addition, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may change the standards of patentability, and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

Depending on these and other decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. While no such litigation has been brought against us and we have not been held by any court to have infringed a third party’s intellectual property rights, we cannot guarantee that our technology, product candidates or use of our product candidates do not infringe third-party patents.

We are aware of numerous patents and pending applications owned by third parties, and we monitor patents and patent applications in the fields in which we are developing product candidates, both in the United States and elsewhere. However, we may have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Moreover, it is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our product candidates and technologies because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology. In addition, we may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of a current or future product candidate, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our product candidates or the use of our product candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may allege that our product candidates or the use of our technologies infringes patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our product candidates and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar bodies in other countries. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future.

Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. If we are found, or believe there is a risk we may be found, to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our product candidates and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any such license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could 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. In addition, 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 harm our business.

Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

Even if we are successful in such proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Patent litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. There could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Any of these risks coming to fruition could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. If we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent, if and when issued, covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement, or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings and equivalent

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective non-provisional filing date. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. 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. If we do not have sufficient patent life to protect our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent and, in some jurisdictions, during the pendency of a patent application. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, 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.

Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

We currently have rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patents and patent applications that we own, to develop our product candidates. Because we may find that our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also

pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial 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 rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may also engage advisors and consultants who are concurrently employed at universities or other organizations or who perform services for other entities.

Although we try to ensure that our employees, advisors and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, advisors or consultants have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such party’s former or current employer or in violation of an agreement with another party. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Similarly, we may be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person’s obligations to a third party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States and assuming that rights are pursued outside the United States. In this regard, in addition to the United States, we also seek to protect our intellectual property rights in other countries. The statutory deadlines for pursuing patent protection in individual foreign jurisdictions are based on the priority date of each of our patent applications. For all of the patent families in our portfolio, including the families that may provide coverage for our lead product candidate, the relevant statutory deadlines have not yet expired. Therefore, for each of the patent families that we believe provide coverage for our lead product candidate, we will need to decide whether and where to pursue additional protection outside the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, for our existing patent rights outside the United States and any foreign patent rights we may decide to pursue in the future, we may not be able to obtain relevant claims and/or 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 jurisdictions.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from so competing.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA regulatory approval for our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term restorations, however, are limited to a maximum of five years and 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. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we 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 have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened, our competitors may obtain earlier approval of competing products and our ability to generate revenues could be materially adversely affected.

We are highly dependent on Carsten Brunn, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team.teams. Although we have entered into employment agreements or offer letters with Dr. Brunn and other executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, technology and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize product candidates. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

As a public company, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. If we are unable to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we may not have adequate, accurate or timely financial information, and we may be unable to meet our reporting obligations as a public company or comply with the requirements of the SEC or Section 404.404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This could result in a restatement of our financial statements, the imposition of sanctions, including the inability of registered broker dealers to make a market in our common stock, or investigation by regulatory authorities. Any such action or other negative results caused by our inability to meet our reporting requirements or comply with legal and regulatory requirements or by disclosure of an accounting, reporting or control issue could adversely affect the trading price of our securities and our business. Material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could also reduce our ability to obtain financing or could increase the cost of any financing we obtain. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

In addition to our U.S. operations, we maintain a wholly owned subsidiary in Russia, Selecta (RUS). However, we are in the process of winding down these operations.all remaining operations of this subsidiary. We may face risks associated with winding down the operations of our subsidiary in Russia, or with any international operations, including possible unfavorable regulatory, pricing and reimbursement, legal, political, tax and labor conditions, and risks associated with our compliance with evolving international sanctions, which could harm our business. We may also rely on collaborators to commercialize any approved product candidates outside of the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our results of operations.

We have previously been, and expect to remain, the target of cyber-attacks. As we become more dependent on information technologies to conduct our operations, cyber incidents, including deliberate attacks, such as ransomware attacks, and attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems and networks, may increase in frequency and sophistication. These incidents pose a risk to the security of our systems and networks, the confidentiality and the availability and integrity of our data and these risks apply both to us, and to third parties on whose systems we rely for the conduct of our business. While we do not believe the effect of these incidents has historically been material to our results of operations, financial condition or prospects, cyber threats are persistent and constantly evolving. Such threats have increased in frequency, scope and potential impact in recent years, which increases the difficulty of detecting and successfully defending against them. As cyber threats continue to

Although we have general liability insurance coverage, our insurance may not cover all claims, continue to be available on reasonable terms or be sufficient in amount to cover one or more large claims. Additionally, the insurer may disclaim coverage as to any claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed or are not covered by our insurance coverage or changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

We may acquire other businesses, product candidates or technologies as well as pursue strategic alliances, joint ventures, technology licenses or investments in complementary businesses. We have not made any acquisitions to date, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven. Any of these transactions could be material to our financial condition and operating results and expose us to many risks, including:

Foreign acquisitions involve unique risks in addition to those mentioned above, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Also, the expected benefit of any acquisition may not materialize. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future joint ventures or acquisitions, or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

The trading price of our common stock is likely to be volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. The stock market in general and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above the price at which you purchased. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

Our executive officers, directors, and principal stockholders, if they choose to act together, will continue to have the ability to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

SalesConcurrently and in connection with the execution of the Merger Agreement, certain Old Cartesian securityholders, as of immediately prior to the Merger, and certain of our directors and officers as of immediately prior to the Merger entered into lock-up agreements with us, pursuant to which each such stockholder is subject to a substantial numberlockup on the sale or transfer of shares of our common stock held by each such stockholder, including those shares received by Old Cartesian securityholders in the Merger, for a period of 180 days from the Closing. Upon expiration of this 180-day lockup period, these shares will become eligible for sale in the public market.

If our stockholders sell, indicate an intention to sell, or it is perceived that they will sell substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, orafter legal restrictions on resale lapse, the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the markettrading price of our common stock reduce. As of December 31, 2022, we had 153,042,435could decline. In addition, shares of common stock outstanding. Also, as of December 31, 2022, 15,844,651 and 1,705,558 shares ofour common stock that are subject to our outstanding options or restricted stock unit awards, respectively, under our outstanding equity plans arewill become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules,agreements and RuleRules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act. Additionally, as of December 31, 2022, up to 31,228,279 shares of common stock are issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants. If these additional shares of common stock are sold, or it is perceived that they will be sold,

Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation, as amended, or the Charter, and ouramended and restated bylawsby-laws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger,an acquisition or othera change in controlmanagement. These provisions include a prohibition on actions by written consent of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which a stockholder might otherwise receive a premium for its shares. These provisions could also limitand the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for sharesability of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors, is responsible for appointingor the membersBoard of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholdersDirectors, to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors.

Although we believe these provisions collectively will provide for a periodan opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our Board of three years afterDirectors, they would apply even if the dateoffer 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 transaction inBoard of Directors, which is responsible for appointing the person acquired in excessmembers of 15%management.

Furthermore, our restated certificate of incorporationCharter specifies that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for most legal actions involving claims brought against us by stockholders. We believe this provision benefits us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law by chancellors particularly experienced in resolving corporate disputes, efficient administration of cases on a more expedited schedule relative to other forums and protection against the burdens of multi-forum litigation. However, the provision may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against our directors, officers, employees and agents as it may limit any stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholder finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Item 2. Properties

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

Comparison Of Cumulative Total Return Selecta Biosciences,Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc.,

On November 13, 2023, the Company and ImmTOR-IL haveOld Cartesian entered into the potentialMerger Agreement. In connection with the Merger and pursuant to unlock antigen-specific therapies for autoimmune diseases and that ImmTOR-IL can further improve the efficacy and safety profile of biologic therapies beyond ImmTOR alone.

From our inception through December 31, 2022, we have raised an aggregateOn a pro forma basis, giving effect to the receipt of $723.3$40.0 million to fund our operations, which includes $118.5 million from the sale of preferred stock, $11.1 million in government grant funding, $36.7 million from borrowings under our credit facilities past and present, $250.2 million from our collaborations and license agreements, $64.5 million in combined net proceeds from our initial public offering, $185.2 million in combined net proceeds from private placements and follow-on offerings of our common stock, and, throughNovember 2023 Private Placement received subsequent to December 31, 2022, $57.1 million in aggregate net proceeds from “at-the-market” offerings of our common stock.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Revenue Recognition

contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price, including the constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) we satisfy each performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration it is entitled to in exchange for the goods or services it transfers to the customer. At contract inception, once the contract is determined to be within the scope of ASC 606, we assess the goods or services promised within each contract and determine those that are performance obligations, and assess whether each promised good or service is distinct. If a promised good or service is not distinct, it is combined with other promised goods or services into a performance obligation. We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied. For example, certain performance obligations associated with Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, or Sobi, Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., or Sarepta, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Takeda,the Astellas Agreement, (see Note 12)14) will be satisfied over time, and revenue will be recognized usingutilizing the output method, based on the proportion of actual deliveries to the total expected deliveries over the initial term.input method.

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for all stock-based compensation granted to employees and non-employees using a fair value method. Stock-based compensation is measured at the grant date fair value and is recognized over the requisite service period of the awards, usually the vesting period, on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures. To the extent that actual forfeitures differ from our estimates, the differences are recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period the estimates were adjusted. Stock-based compensation expense recognized in the consolidated financial statements is based on awards that ultimately vest.

The assumptions used in determining the fair value of stock-based awards represent our best estimates, but the estimates involve inherent uncertainties and the application of our judgment. As a result, if factors change and we use significantly different assumptions or estimates, our stock-based compensation expense could be materially different in the future.

Smaller Reporting Company

We qualify as a “smaller reporting company” under the rules of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. As a result, we may choose to take advantage of certain scaled disclosure requirements available specifically to smaller reporting companies. We will remain a smaller reporting company until the last day of the fiscal year in which the aggregate market value of our common stock held by non-affiliated persons and entities, or our public float, is more than $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or until the fiscal year following the year in which we have at least $100 million in revenue and at least $250 million in public float as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Item 9B. Other Information

Not applicable.